![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Playning in Spokane Washington recently I came across a 10-20 game that had an unusual blind structure:
Little Blind $2 Big Blind $5
A player can call for $5 but to raise you need to make it $20 to go.
Otherwise it plays as regular 10-20.
This changes a lot. Could I get some enlightenment as to how this affects: Starting Hand Selection, Blind Stealing, Check raiseing before the flop, and the general level of aggressiveness.
The game seemed awful sluggish and slow to me which I attributed to these blinds.
Thanks A9s
it's 10-20 with tiny blinds, so you can afford to play SUPER tight. that first raise to 20$ means you will get a lot more respect when you raise BTF, but it's not worth raising as often because the blinds you might steal are so much smaller. overall, I don't like the structure and it's no wonder the game was slow.
Played in a pretty tight 30-60 game when i get dealed pocket Kings on the button. This hand was the first time that all players called to me ( usually only 2 or 3 players in the pot) . I didn't raise here because i thought i will probably be beaten with any kind of flop if i don't flop a king. Am i right here ? Or should i raise anyway ?
Look at it this way: If you are not going to raise with KK what are you going to raise with, wait for AA? Yes, your chances of winning have gone down with the large field but go ahead and raise, try to lose the blinds and make all of the limpers call a raise with inferior hands due to the big pot brewing.
I was playing a fairly typical 9-18 game yesterday with a wide variety of player types. I was playing extremely tight during the whole session and my chip stack was pretty stagnant. In fact, during one span of 3 rounds, I think I only saw 1 flop (other than my unraised BB hands). Well, I pick up KhQh UTG and limp. A loose/aggressive player (LA) who has been running bad raises two seats to my left. Four other players call including a tight/aggressive (AT) player in the cutoff. I call. We see the flop 6-handed.
Flop: Ks 9h 4h (great flop for me, I think).
I'm first to act and check.
Question 1: Should I have bet here? I believed that I was greatly handicapped by my position. In fact, I was planning to just flat call any bets (regardless of my big draw) because LA could have AK. Would any of you considered a check-raise assuming someone would bet the flop?
Anyways, LA bets, one limper calls, TA raises, I call, LA FOLDS! and limper calls. Now 3-handed. I guess LA had nothing (maybe medium or small suited-connectors).
Turn: Ks 9h 4h (6d)
I bet out because I put TA on a flush draw (just hoping it isn't the nut flush draw). Limper folds and LA thinks for a few moments and just calls.
Question 2: Would you guys have bet out on the turn? Or maybe go for a check-raise?
River: Ks 9h 4h 6d (Qs)
Of course I bet again. I missed my flush, but I have top two pair. TA thinks again, but quickly calls. I tell him I have top two and he shakes his head and shows me AhKd. I take the pot.
Honestly, I thought that I was winning all the way. I had some outs, but I definitely didn't win the hand the way that I thought I would. Anyways, would any one have played it any differently? FYI, TA said that he thought I made 2 pair on the turn not the river.
ouch he thought you had K6? so much for your table image eh? he shouldve raised you on the turn. he played weak tight. you should have bet out on the flop and let LA raise it for you. in this case it wouldve come back to you as 3 bets but so what, you have a great draw. you could go either way on the turn. your bet confused him and like i said already he was a fool not to raise you right there and then.
id almost like a check raise attempt on the river. you can be quite sure you have the best hand since you werent raised on the turn but the question is whether or not he'll put you on a busted flush draw and bet at you. im not sure he wouldve, he played the turn so poorly, but i think against a typical opponent this would have been your strongest play.
early player (EP) open limps, all fold to me in the cutoff. I have 66 and raise to get the button. big blind calls, limper calls.
the flop is all clubs with a 6c
blind checks, EP checks, I check.
Turn is a non-spade rag.
blind check, EP bets, I raise. blind calls two bets cold (shit) and EP calls. Comments? should I have raised?
river is another non-spade rag.
blind leads out, EP folds, I make crying call. should I make this call?
Bet the flop, if raised re-raise, the trun should EP now bet you can call to the river, if they check I'm driving the set to the river. They'll need dynamite to get me to release this hand.
SPM,...now I read the correct answer from Jim Brier...
I like the raise BTF. Aggression is good and on the button is a good place to show a little extra aggression. I think you absolutely should bet the flop. Make the singleton clubs pay for their draw. The raise on the turn is another aggressive move I like. You have the redraw in case they have a made flush.
When thing I consider when deciding to just call for two bets (with AK) or raising to three out of the blinds is whether my raise will eliminate limpers. So if the first person in raised there are no limpers to eliminate, or if the limpers are the kind of opponents who will now automatically come I'm less inclined to raise.
Thanks for explaining the concept. I did some modeling of EV in this situation and my conclusion is that this strategy is well supported mathematically which I'm sure you already knew.
The other night when I was at the Mirage I asked a number of good players what they would do if a decent player limps in under the gun, a solid player raises from early position, and everyone folds to you in the small blind holding AK offsuit. The majority of them would just call but there were some who would 3 bet to make sure the big blind and the limper got out of the hand. The point is that Mason stated that many players would 3 bet in this situation. I was amazed to learn that this was indeed correct.
Of course, I still don't like the play under the circumstances described since I believe that all you are doing is locking up a good second place finish for yourself. Now if they would just pay for second place....
The interesting thing is that you have asked precisely those players who would be less inclined to three bet. Only the very best players and some exceptionally weak ones would know not to three bet in this spot. Virtually all other players would.
By the way, unless you can be accurate with this sort of thing, your ability to read hands will be diminished and your overall win rate will not be that high because you won't be able to identify those situations where a seemingly unusual play (such as a fourth street raise with an AQ when the board is ATT8 - two hearts) is correct.
"Only the very best players and some exceptionally weak ones would know not to three bet in this spot."
Interesting. Don't get me wrong I'm not proposing that this situation is an automatic three bet but Mason is wrong if he thinks a three bet is not a good play in this situation. Which is what the above statement means to me.
Vince
All I'm saying is that three betting may not be right if the blind and the original limper are likely to come. What I am saying is that the best players are probably going to consider this option (of not reraising) while the typical player would never consider it.
nt
O.K so you are correct. Big deal.
Vince
I am usually less inclined to three bet from either blind with AKo because in the games I play in, doing so will rarely eliminate anyone, plus I am out of position, and if I get raised again it will almost always be by a big pair. See the flop for cheap unless limpers will be eliminated. it is possible to make your opponents make a larger mistake by calling your bet/raise if you haven't made the pot so darn big by reraising. Suited I would reraise almost every time because like I said, it won't eliminate limpers, but suited my hand likes the extra $$ in the pot more. Also, It somewhat depends on the raising requirements of the initial raiser. If I am so unlucky as to have a maniac on my immediate left, I would reraise with AKo or AKs because my hand would likely be better than his (and everyone else's).
Odd, I would think reraising w/AK is routine especially if you are in a position where your reraise would force the others to call 2 more bets cold and thus make them likely to fold. If you could get it heads up if just one more bet, "then this is an expense you should not worry about." (or something like that).
I don't like JB's comment/inconsistency, he seems to be saying the play of reraising is coorect yet costing you money. I don't think the correct will cost you money in the long run....
Actually, I don't think he ever stated that reraising was correct so I don't know that there was any inconsistency in his commentary.
I do (and have) questioned his assumption that Mason (in that example) likely has a better hand than AK and his assertion that chasing out the limpers may not be worth very much because you are going to finish in second place in any event.
It is not hard to imagine a scenario where you outflop Mason if he had something like QQ and yet lose to one of the other 2 limpers. That's one reason why getting out the 2 players in between you and Mason is important with a hand like AK out of the sb. You get dead money in the pot and increase your chances of winning the pot at the cost of one extra bet preflop.
The fear of being 4 bet is not something that one should worry about very much. Firstly, 4 bets preflop are uncommon. Secondly, if Mason does 4 bet preflop, it could save you money on later streets with the info you have on his hand.
suspicious let us review the original operating assumptions that were in place when this question got generated. You are in a $30-$60 game. A decent player limps in under the gun. A solid player, Mason in this case, immediately raises. Everyone folds to you in the small blind holding AK offsuit.
I believe 3 betting is a mistake. Mason's point was not really whether or not 3 betting was a mistake. Mason's point was that many decent players will in fact 3 bet here. I thought he was wrong. Based on my little informal survey of good players I talked to at the Mirage, it turns out that some of them would in fact 3 bet for the reasons skp and yourself mention. So Mason was right in stating that many good players would 3 bet here.
Now all that being said, most of the good players I talked to would just call. Their thinking is similar to mine. The raiser will have AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK, or AQ. Against AA your AK is hopelessly buried. Against KK, you are dead to an Ace. Against QQ,JJ,TT you will be out of position facing an over pair most of the time when the flop misses you making you a dog. Against another AK you are a slight underdog because of your poor position and the fact that your opponent is a good player just like yourself. The only hand that you are a clear favorite against is AQ. Furthermore, it is costing you at least one extra bet to 3 bet and in some cases it will cost you two extra bets when you get 4 bet. I feel, along with many other players I have talked to, that these facts override the benefit of driving out the other two players. As an aside, the big blind might fold anyway for one bet so re-raising may not be necessary to get one of the other two players out.
--Of course, I still don't like the play under the circumstances described since I believe that all you are doing is locking up a good second place finish for yourself. Now if they would just pay for second place.... --
Jim you miss point badly. If you heads up, a 6-5 dog and pot offer 2-1 you glad to take it. Do you mind being in second then? You always lose with AK against other pair? If reraise get it heads up don't you make more money?
The issue is not whether or not you will play. No one is advocating folding here. The issue is whether or not the increased cost of 3 betting coupled with the possibility of it getting 4 bet by a player marked with a good hand with the best position is worth the value of having the other two players fold. In general, I don't believe it is. First of all, the big blind may well fold anyway so in his case your 3 bet is not necessary to get him out. Secondly, the decent player who limped in under the gun may well have cards you need thereby crippling your chances for improvement. Hands headed by an Ace or a King are the kinds of hands players limp with (e.g.-AJ,KQ,AT suited, KJ suited). If the UTG limper has a medium pair like 99,88,77, or 66 unless he flops a set he will probably be folding anyway once the flop comes. The only other hands a decent player limps in with under the gun would be QJ suited, JT suited, and maybe T9 suited. Unless he flops a draw, he will probably be dumping these once the flop comes anyway with a pre-flop raiser right over him.
You guys are grossly overestimating the value of eliminating a limper or two in situations where you most likely have a second best playing hand under the circumstances given your poor position. It is rarely worth the cost.
"You guys are grossly overestimating the value of eliminating a limper or two in situations where you most likely have a second best playing hand under the circumstances given your poor position. It is rarely worth the cost."
Frankly, I think you put way too much emphasis on having to cough up an extra bet preflop.
There are so many assumptions you are making here which may or may not be valid. If they are valid and I am wrong, it ain't the end of the world - I lose an extra bet or possibly two if Mason has AA or KK (in which case I may save money on later streets with the added info I have on his hand). But if they are invalid and you are wrong, you may just let another pot slip by when you hold a premium hand.
Your assumptions and my comments:
1. Mason most likely has a better hand (I have already commented on this...don't forget that you will outflop Mason about 30% of the time even if he has TT,JJ or QQ).
2. First limper likely has an Ace or King because those are good limping cards.
I don't agree with you at all that hands with Aces or Kings are limping hands. In any event, if that was the case, you should just about never raise with AK once two or three guys limp in because surely one or two of your 6 outs are dead.
Interesting to note that the limper here had 97s. I think that you often incorrectly assume that everyone has the same UTG limping standards that you do. I don't know about Vegas games in general but many players in the games that I play in would play these hands UTG.
3. The big blind may fold anyway.
While this is true, there is absolutely no doubt that the big blind can play a helluva lot more hands if you don't 3 bet. Mnay will play hands as weak as 64s or 87 offsuit. It's one of the reasons that when you have a hand like A8 or something in the sb, you should frequently 3 bet a cut-off or button preflop open-raise. You want to get the big blind out and get heads-up.
Can we at least agree that if the limper and BB announced to the table that they will fold if you reraise but call if you don't, then you should reraise. If not, then I gather you are saying that factor No. 1 by itself is enough reason not to reraise - am I correct?
I am afraid not. I remained unconvinced that driving out one or two limping hands is worth even one small bet much less two unless the pot is gigantic (20 bets or more). Consider a hypothetical case. You have Player A, Player B, and Player C. Player A's chances of winning the pot are 60%. Player B's chances of winning the pot are 30%. Player C's chances of winning the pot are 10%. If Player B is willing to put in one more small bet, then Player C will fold. What happens when Player C folds in most cases? Player A's chances increase to 67% and Player B's chances increase to 33%. Player B has increased his chances of winning by 3%. How big does a pot have to be to make this worth 1 bet? Something on the order of 30 bets (1/0.033). Pots are rarely this large. Furthermore, as the pot gets bigger the likelihood of anyone folding for one more bet goes down dramatically.
P.S: I am unaware of any book ever written on full tabled limit hold'em which advocates limping in under the gun with Nine-Seven suited. Not Ciaffone, not Krieger, not Jones, not 2+2, not anyone. Therefore, any player who does so should be stripped of the title "a decent player".
Your looking at the problem in the correct way and your point is valid. However, as skp alludes to you are describing a worst case scenario and are not describing the nominal case IMO. I did some modeling of EV in this situation and I believe that the strategy is well supported mathematically. However, my modeling was crude and I think I need to do a more thorough job before I post my work. I will attempt to do this in the next couple of days but I'm busy with a lot of activities at the present time. I consider this a "fun" activity though so I may find the time to clean up my work. I think we should leave this interesting debate at the point where you left it. We have to make a case that the cost of an extra small bet results in an appropriate gain in EV. Or at leat describe when this occurs.
I would welcome such an analysis because I may be wrong about this. Both David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth have argued that it is frequently correct to raise even when you know you don't have the best hand in order to drive out other players and increase your chances of winning the pot. I remain "a doubting Thomas" until someone shows me with a few specific examples. I think it should be a separate lead post on the "General" forum. I also think it should be discussed at the upcoming seminar that 2+2 is planning in April at the Mirage.
Good post and I was wondering if the Turbo sims might shed some insight as well.
Dear Doubting Thomas:)
Limper, Mason and you with AK in the sb.
Assuming that Mason does not have AA, I don't think that you can find a combination of hands for the 3 players such that their respective chances of winning are limper (10%), Mason (60%) and you (30%). Let me know if you think there any such combos.
Furthermore, when you get rid of the limpers (don't forget bb which you have not accounted for in your 60-30-10 estimates), I think you will increase your chances of winning the pot more than Mason's chances will be increased if he has hands like QQ-TT. This is because when he has those hands, the danger cards for him are the ones that you hold. So, when you toast the limpers with your reraise, you are the primary benefactor rather than Mason.
And you continue to refuse to consider how the hand will play out if you 3 bet as opposed to if you smoothcall. Flops that will terrify you if you smoothcall will now terrify Mason if you reraise even if you assume that he *MUST* have a better preflop hand which is of course not necessarily true.
When I first got involved in this debate, I said that there were plenty of valid arguments on both sides i.e., 3 betting and smoothcalling. I am baffled that despite the many points put forth in favour of 3 betting, you continue to think that smoothcalling is so much the better play all because you want to save 1 bet.
I guess I just can't get my points across very well.
I too look forward to Haley's analysis.
As for your 97s suited comments, of course you are correct in saying that it shouldn't be played UTG. A very good player would not play it there. But if a player plays it, it doesn't mean that he just can't be decent. My point simply was that you are wrong to think that every decent player would muck hands such as 97s UTG. And of course, almost all poor players play those hands up front.
"Assuming that Mason does not have AA, I don't think that you can find a combination of hands for the 3 players such that their respective chances of winning are limper (10%), Mason (60%), and you (30%)."
But why would I exclude AA? Against AA or KK, the AK is HUGE dog. Against KK I need to flop an Ace which will only happen about 20% of the time. Against QQ,JJ,TT an Ace or a King will only flop 30% of the time and this includes flops that give Mason a set. While I may not be able to come up with precise hand holdings for everyone that equate to exactly the percentage I used in my strawman, I believe that they are representative and the idea is quite valid. There is some range you could use and vary it a few percentage points but you would still conclude that the pot has to be very large in order to justify the increased cost. This increased cost is more than one small bet because there will be a certain percentage of the time when it will get 4 bet.
"So when you toast the limpers with your reraise, you are the primary benefactor rather than Mason."
I don't see how you figure this at all. How is eliminating limpers help AK versus QQ out of position? The limpers are more likely to hold an Ace or a King than they are to hold a Queen given your hand and Mason's. Furthermore, there are a lot more hands that people limp with which include an Ace or a King than include a Queen.
"And you continue to refuse ot consider how the hand will play out if you 3 bet as opposed to if you smoothcall. Flops that terrify you if you smoothcall will now terrify Mason if you re-raise even if you re-raise even if you assume the he must have a better pre-flop hand which is of course not necessarily true".
Unless the flop comes Ace high or King high (a 30% probability), a 3 bet will not terrify Mason when he holds an overpair with position. Heads-up with a large pot at stake, an overpair is a through ticket. Mason's hand is AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK, or AQ. Given your hand of AK, Mason will have a better hand over 70% of the time given his superior position. In fact AQ suited is not that big of a dog to AK when AQ suited has position I wouldn't think.
Your points are very clear. But like many poker decisions there are reasons for deciding which course of action to take. The issue is which reasons are the most compelling given the particulars of the situation.
"Mason's hand is AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK, or AQ."
Quick observation... Previously I suggested stretching that range just a bit. But even going very strictly by HPFAP his hands should include AJs and KQs - right?
Yes, AJ suited and KQ suited should be included. Given that you have AK of different suits, this would be 6 more hands that you could beat making your hand a little better. Personally, I would be surprised if Mason raises much upfront with KQ suited. I never would. KQ suited is a bizarre hand. It looks lovely but it doesn't get to win very often in shortanded, raised pots like this.
It still seems counter intuitive that AQ offsuit is a fold when you have position over the raiser but AK offsuit becomes a re-raising hand when you are out of position. AK offsuit is better than AQ offsuit. But is it that much better?
Situation No.1 has Mason UTG coming in with a raise. You have AQ off. Feeney's AQ test has you folding.
Situation No.2 has a UTG limper, a raise by Mason and you in the sb with AK. We both agree that folding is out of the qusetion here. The big debate if we have been boring the crowd with is whether you ought to reraise. You already know my reasons for reraising although as I have stated several times, smoothcalling has its advantages.
In any event...
Situation No. 1: Mason has TT(6), JJ(6), QQ (3), KK (6), AA (3), AK (12), AQ (9), AJs (3) and KQs (3).
When he raises, you only beat KQs and AJs - 6 combos. Further, you are behind when he has AQ despite your favourable position because if neither of you get help, you will likely fold before he does.
So, you are ahead 6 times and behind 45 times. Actually, come to think of it, you are not even "really" ahead when he has AJs and KQs because if you both miss, once again, he will likely take the pot. You will both likely miss here given that you share 1 common card in each scenario.
Your best chances of a suck-out are if he has TT,JJ (12 combos). But once again, since you are the caller preflop rather than the 3 bettor, you will often fail to go to the river even if pot odds warrant it. This reduces your chances of a suckout.
In situation No. 2, you have a much better hand.
Mason's hands are TT (6), JJ (6), QQ (6), KK (3), AA (3), AK (9), AQ (12), AJs (3) and KQs (3). Once again, 51 possible raising hands.
You are ahead 18 times. You are tied 9 times. You are behind 24 times.
Now, if you three bet like I suggest, you are in fact ahead 27 times as now when he has AK, you should take the pot (usually).
Of the 24 times that you are behind, you have what about a 48% chance (guess) of sucking out on TT,JJ,QQ if you go to the river (given that you have 3 bet preflop, you are usually commited to seeing the turn and often the river). In situation No. 1, your chances of sucking out on QQ are not as good as here obviously.
In sum, you are ahead more often in the case of AK. You have greater cahnces of sucking out. By three betting, you increase your chances of sucking out and by 3 betting, you will likely win on those occasions when you both miss.
While you have position in situation No. 1 and don't in situation no. 2, what good is it going to do you if you are not going to use it i.e. I presume that if the flop comes all rags, you are not going to raise Mason to see where he is at.
Besides, in situation No. 2, by 3 betting with the AK, you are telling Mason something. You have to put him on a thought at this point. He is likely to fear AA or KK in your hands. So, by betting the flop and turn, you will take the pot when he has AK etc. because he knows that AK is about the worst hand you could have.
Yes..AK is way better than AQ just like AQ is way better than KQ.
Okay, skp you almost have me convinced here. But let me summarize it differently:
Situation 1: Losses: 36 Ties:9 Wins: 6 Total: 51 (AQ)
Situation 2: Losses: 24 Ties:9 Wins: 18 Total: 51 (AK)
AQ is a loser 71% of the time. AK is only a loser 47% of the time. This is a BIG improvement. In situation #2 it still troubles me that I am 3 betting on a hand that rates to be a loser almost half the time.
Your logic about ties seems to be counter intuitive. The conventional wisdom is that the last guy to act has the advantage. You are arguing that the first guy to act has the advantage because he was the last one to take aggressive action. This might be true but it seems paradoxical and is unclear to me. It is more clear to me that ties in situation #1 favor the pre-flop raiser than that ties in situation #2 favor an out of position 3 bettor. In situation #2 I don't believe Mason would capitulate with AK on the flop facing a 3 bettor which means that AK is going to have to keep firing on later streets which can get expensive since he doesn't know where he stands. Would most players lead with AK on the turn when undercards show up facing an early position pre-flop raiser? I don't know. I tend to think not.
Back at the office earlier than expected:)
Nothing at all wrong with your lingering doubts. A lot of what both of us have been saying in this thread are subject to attack and certainly, the points you raise here are valid considerations to doubt what I am saying.
That said, once you 3 bet preflop, you generally should take a stab at the turn with nothing when you face no raise on the flop because Mason still has to worry that the worst hand you could have is AK.
The way I see it is that the 3 bet preflop goes a long way in neutralizing (or at least diminishing) the positional disadvantage you have.
In situation No. 1, you lose ties despite having the positional advantage precisely because you were not the preflop aggressor. Of course, you can resteal and stuff like that but I am talking about what usually happens. Preflop aggression is IMO a very big factor and in heads-up situations can sometimes be as (if not more) important than position provided of course you don't overdo it. I mean, if you start 3 betting out of the bb with AJ against an early position raiser solid, you are doomed as he will no longer fear your 3 bets very much and will be more likely to use his position to advantage on later streets. This is of course simply restating the maxim that tight-aggressive poker is the key to success.
As always, a pleasure discussing poker with you. Thanks for your superb insight here and generally speaking all threads that you throw your 2 bits into.
Well, no.
When you have AK, unless Mason has AA, there is no way that his chances of winning the pot are anywhere near twice yours. After all, Mason is way more likely to have other raising hands as opposed to aa or K given that you have AK.
Give Mason any of TT-AA, AK, AQ, AJs and perhaps the red KQs.
If you work out the math using Bayesian analysis, there is no way that the figures come anywhere close to 60% Mason and 30 % for you and 10% for the other guy if you put him on some kind of semi-hand (i.e. don't put 72 off suit in his hands but you can put in hands as weak as 22 or 65s).
I would say that the figures are closer to 45% Mason, 35% you and 20% the other guy.
Now, if you remove the other guy from the equation with a 3 bet, you might see that the equation changes to 55% Mason and 45% you..,if Mason has TT-QQ, your chances are nearly equal to his i.e. 50%/50%. That's the classic tournament confrontation a pocket pair vs. AK - usually a 50/50 proposition.
This shows that toasting the limpers can help you more than Mason. It has to. You have to hit to beat Mason if he has a pocket pair. If you don't hit, it makes no difference to you if the limper is in or out because you are still trailing. But once you hit, you benefit from limper being out.
Now, all of this is assuming a "bad" case scenario for you i.e. Mason has you beat. It's not the worst case scenario because Mason could have AA. But there's also a better case scenario i.e. Mason has AK, AQ, AJs, the red KQs. In a real game situation where none of you are all in, you lose every time when the flop comes all rags and he has these hands if you smoothcall. You win if you 3 bet preflop.
If the flop comes all rags and he has a pocket pair, you lose. But you would lose regardless of whether you 3 bet preflop. In other words, saving a bet preflop on those instances ain't going to help you on the flop. But investing that bet preflop helps you a great deal if you have Mason beat or tied preflop or if you catch Queen high flops when he has JJ,TT or if you catch a Jack high flop when he has TT.
Bottom line: You wrote:
"While I may not be able to come up with precise hand holdings for everyone that equate to exactly the percentage I used in my strawman, I believe that they are representative and the idea is quite valid."
With respect, your percentages are not very representative at all IMO as explained above.
You also wrote:
"Against QQ,JJ,TT an Ace or a King will only flop 30% of the time and this includes flops that give Mason a set."
I used 30% to account for the times when you flop an Ace or king but the flop also gives Mason a set. The odds of flopping an Ace or King are higher than that. In other words, I am saying that you will outflop Mason 30% of the time if he has a pocket pair, You don't have to take into account running into a set because the 30% figure already takes that into consideration.
The odds of flopping an Ace or a King given that you have AK are: 1 minus the probability of no Ace or King on a flop of three cards. The probability of no Ace or King on 3 cards is: (44/50)(43/49)(42/48) or 0.676. The probability of flopping an Ace or a King is therefore about 32%. Now if you want to adjust it for the specific case when Mason has QQ then then your chances improve to about 34%. However, this is optimistic since there will be times when you flop an Ace or a King but Mason flops a Queen giving him a set. To figure this out, suppose the first card is an Ace. Given that you have AK and Mason has QQ, there are 47 unseen cards two of which are Queens. The probability that neither of the remaining two flop cards are a Queen is: (45/47)(44/46) which is 91.6%. In other words, about 8% of the time Mason will flop a set of Queens when you flop an Ace or a King. So overall your chances of flopping top pair without Mason flopping a set of Queens is about 26% making you a 3:1 dog. Furthermore, you will go on to lose big bucks the 8% of the time you flop top pair/top kicker and Mason flops a set of Queens. Of course when you flop top pair and no Queen flops, Mason will have no trouble dumping his two outer in most cases so you don't get payed off when you get lucky and get the best of it on the flop.
The so called classic tournament confrontation where a pair of Deuces is only a slight favorite over AK sounds like a Lawrence Hill computer simulation study that assumes that AK gets to go all the way to the river at no cost. This might happen against Deuces. But when AK is up against QQ out of position in a real poker situation, AK will frequently never get to the river especially if the flop misses AK completely.
Now factor in the times when one or more of the limpers happen to have limped in with an Ace or a King in their hands. Your chances of improving to run down QQ really plummet.
I guess it will take a computer simulation study or something to address this. You may want to answer my question to John Feeney about how it can wrong to call with AQ offsuit with position against an early position raiser but it is right to re-raise with AK offsuit out of position against that same raiser. Is AK offsuit that much better than AQ offsuit? The latter is a fold with position but the former is a re-raising hand out of position? There is something wrong with this picture.
Thank you for taking the pains to figure out the actual odds of you outflopping Mason if he has QQ. The 30% figure was an estimate (as I initially stated when I proposed it) - but I'll buy the 26% calculation that you have set out but the rest of my comments above still apply with the 26% figure.
"So overall your chances of flopping top pair without Mason flopping a set of Queens is about 26% making you a 3:1 dog."
Yes...now what about the 9 times that he will have AK, the 12 times that he will have AQ, the 3 times he will have AJs and the 2 or 3 times he will have KQs.
When you factor in all of those, you will have no chance of showing that Mason stands to win twice as often as you do even if there was no further betting i.e. you both go all in. So, I stand by my comment that the 60%-30%-10% figure is way off.
"The so called classic tournament confrontation where a pair of Deuces is only a slight favorite over AK sounds like a Lawrence Hill computer simulation study that assumes that AK gets to go all the way to the river at no cost. This might happen against Deuces. But when AK is up against QQ out of position in a real poker situation, AK will frequently never get to the river especially if the flop misses AK completely."
Ironic. I have oftn made the same point to you with respect to 3 betting an early position solid player when you have JJ or TT. Your argument against 3 betting then has always been that JJ is a big dog to an overpair and a small favourite over AK and AQ. And I pointed out on several occasions that this incorrectly assumes that AK will go the river. Now, you are throwing it in my face:)...Touche....but aaah...I have considered that. You see, when you 3 bet preflop, you are going to see the turn card for sure and may even go to the river. If you don't 3 bet preflop, it is way less likely that you will get an opportunity to do this.
You are right about the computer simulations. Maybe Abdul can be summoned but as I gather, he is busy making quantum leaps (see RGP).
But let's not lose sight of why I am even arguing this issue with you: I am simply saying that you are wrong if you think smoothcalling is clearly the better choice. There are advantages of smoothcalling to be sure (I never claimed otherwise) and you nicley point out one such advantage i.e. you hit an Ace on the flop and now don't want to lose Mason with his 2 outer.
Which brings me to another issue where you and I have disagreed before. The situation is this: I have AK in the big blind and the button raises and sb folds. I will often just call with my AK precisely because I think I have greater EV by calling if I happen to flop an Ace or King. Depending on the texture of the flop, I may often checkcall all the way. Good flops to do this on would be those that come with an open pair.
I will answer your question to John later. Gotta go for a haircut.
|
|
AhKd |
JcTc |
3h3d |
QsQd |
|
% chance of outright win |
29.35 |
19.49 |
16.53 |
34.42 |
|
% chance of win or split |
29.55 |
19.69 |
16.73 |
34.63 |
|
expected return, % of pot |
29.40 |
19.54 |
16.58 |
34.47 |
|
fair pot odds:1 |
2.40 |
4.11 |
5.03 |
1.90 |
|
|
AhKd |
QsQd |
|
% chance of outright win |
43.032 |
56.55 |
|
% chance of win or split |
43.45 |
56.97 |
|
expected return, % of pot |
43.24 |
56.76 |
|
fair pot odds:1 |
1.31 |
0.76 |
|
|
AhKd |
3h3d |
QsQd |
|
% chance of outright win |
35.38 |
17.67 |
46.52 |
|
% chance of win or split |
35.81 |
18.10 |
46.95 |
|
expected return, % of pot |
35.52 |
17.81 |
46.67 |
|
fair pot odds:1 |
1.82 |
4.61 |
1.14 |
|
|
AhKd |
7c6c |
2h2d |
QsQd |
|
% chance of outright win |
27.42 |
24.05 |
15.55 |
33.76 |
|
% chance of win or split |
27.64 |
24.26 |
14.77 |
33.98 |
|
expected return, % of pot |
27.48 |
24.10 |
14.60 |
33.82 |
|
fair pot odds:1 |
2.64 |
3.15 |
5.85 |
1.95 |
|
|
AhKd |
7c6c |
2h2d |
AsQd |
|
% chance of outright win |
25.43 |
35.16 |
21.22 |
15.85 |
|
% chance of win or split |
27.77 |
35.48 |
21.54 |
18.19 |
|
expected return, % of pot |
26.52 |
35.24 |
21.30 |
16.94 |
|
fair pot odds:1 |
2.77 |
1.84 |
3.69 |
4.90 |
|
|
AhKd |
AsQd |
|
% chance of outright win |
72.35 |
22.97 |
|
% chance of win or split |
77.03 |
27.65 |
|
expected return, % of pot |
74.69 |
25.31 |
|
fair pot odds:1 |
0.34 |
2.95 |
|
|
AhKd |
JcTc |
3s3h |
AdQd |
|
% chance of outright win |
24.10 |
30.25 |
24.23 |
19.50 |
|
% chance of win or split |
26.01 |
30.54 |
24.52 |
21.42 |
|
expected return, % of pot |
24.98 |
30.32 |
24.31 |
20.39 |
|
fair pot odds:1 |
3.00 |
2.298 |
3.11 |
3.90 |
|
|
AhKd |
7s6s |
AcQc |
|
% chance of outright win |
36.78 |
36.43 |
24.36 |
|
% chance of win or split |
39.21 |
36.69 |
26.79 |
|
expected return, % of pot |
37.95 |
36.52 |
25.53 |
|
fair pot odds:1 |
1.63 |
1.74 |
2.92 |
Just for the heck of it I did some hot and cold sims pitting AK against various hands. I used QQ and AQ as the raiser's hand. There clearly is a tremendous benefit to three betting AK and eliminating hands like 76s, 33, and JTs when the raiser has AQ. When the raiser has QQ eliminating players probably benefits the QQ more than the AK. However, if the other players stay in it isn't that bad for the AK when the raiser has AQ. At this point I'm thinking that three betting AK is very wrong when:
1) Raiser has AA or KK.
2) Raiser has something like AQs and there are other callers with decent hands that will stay in for the extra bets.
It is a good play when you can eliminate the callers and the raiser does not have AA or KK.
I'd be interested in comments about this. This is far from a complete analysis and I realize that hot and cold sims leave a lot to be desired however I do think they provide some insight.
Interesting and thanks. Your conclusions sound perfectly all right to me although to be sure, I will reflect on your sim results a little more and provide some afterthoughts later in the week.
I am tied up at some depositions over the next few days and will be out of the loop till at least Wednesday.
Tom I appreciate the analyses and would like to see more, perhaps on a new post but I have some problems:
1. Does this assume that hands like pocket Deuces and Seven-Six suited get to go all the way to the river? If yes, then their winning chances are overstated. Pocket Deuces will not be calling flop bets without flopping a set so they never get to see the river.
2. I don't believe that there are very many players who will limp in under the gun in a $30-$60 game with a small pocket pair or a small to medium suited connector (e.g.-Seven-Six suited). I think you should run the analyses based on the UTG limper having AJ offsuit or KQ offsuit or AT suited or KJ suited or 99 or 88 or 77.
3. I recommend for simplicity sake you ignore the big blind for the moment and assume he would fold for one raise or two. Just concentrate on the UTG limper having one of the hands I listed.
4. Do the simulation first assuming that the limper goes all the way to the river but then assume that he folds on the flop or turn when he catches a top pair of Aces,Kings, or Queens and gets bet out of the hand so he never gets beyond the turn.
I don't know if this is all possible and I may be asking for too much. I also believe this should be continued as a new post so others can more easily participate.
Thanks!
>>Tom I appreciate the analyses and would like to see more, perhaps on a new post but I have some problems: <<
This is not meant to be a complete analysis rather a start.
>>1. Does this assume that hands like pocket Deuces and Seven-Six suited get to go all the way to the river? If yes, then their winning chances are overstated. Pocket Deuces will not be calling flop bets without flopping a set so they never get to see the river. <<
Yes it does and I agree with what you are saying.
>>2. I don't believe that there are very many players who will limp in under the gun in a $30-$60 game with a small pocket pair or a small to medium suited connector (e.g.-Seven-Six suited). I think you should run the analyses based on the UTG limper having AJ offsuit or KQ offsuit or AT suited or KJ suited or 99 or 88 or 77. <<
I somewhat disagree with this in light of some of Mason's comments (especially small pairs) but I agree that all the hands you mention are worth looking at.
>>3. I recommend for simplicity sake you ignore the big blind for the moment and assume he would fold for one raise or two. Just concentrate on the UTG limper having one of the hands I listed. <<
Ok
>>4. Do the simulation first assuming that the limper goes all the way to the river but then assume that he folds on the flop or turn when he catches a top pair of Aces,Kings, or Queens and gets bet out of the hand so he never gets beyond the turn. <<
One of the things about three betting is that a hand such as 76s knows he will get bet out of the hand and have a propensity to fold pre-flop for two bets. I really think a better idea would be some TTH sims to complement what is done with the hot and cold sims. I'll have to add some software (what you suggest is great) but this will take time and I will have to verify that my code works.
Even though what you said in your first point is true I believe that eliminating the pairs and suited connectors has more value than what you may think. Anyway I would like to do hot and cold sims given your criteria and do some Turbo sims (I need to get the most recent version of TTH) with the same criteria. Look at the results and see if they provide any insight.
(n/t)
You played the river great. Enjoyable post.
How else could I play the river?
n/t
But I still think you are pure evil!
Still though, if it was me I would be smirking for hours! I'm a little bit evil now and then too....
Dave in Cali
this difficulty is easily avoided by mucking if you don't hit your set.
I'm not so this is true, since a certain percentage of the time you WILL hold the best hand after the flop, whether you hit your set or not AND whether the pot was raised or not. Paying hard earned $$ to see a flop, only to fold the best hand afterward, can't be a very good poker strategy.
Kevin
my view on playing pocket pairs up front is that I'm relying on the implied odds of hitting a set. So if the game is loose or there are several players that will always go to far with their hands I will play. Playing pocket pairs after the flop is very tricky unless you have good control of your opponents. Not many of us do. So if you start going too far with your pocket pairs when you don't flop a set you are giving back all the money you win when you do hit your set. You're correct that throwing away the best hand is not profitable but you have to know you have the best hand. Since neither of us are complete calling stations I'm sure that we've both been bluffed out or thrown away a winner. A similiar situation is playing Ace-shit suited and an Ace flops. for this hand to be profitable you have to be able to muck top pair.
Mike-
I'm not sure if I got the gist of your post. It sounded to me as if you are suggesting playing ALL pocket pairs from early position unless the game is specifically very aggressive. Is this correct?
There is also another problem I don't like about this strategy (although I'm not saying it's wrong). Since I'm very much mathematically challenged, I have no way of verifying this...
Losing when you flop a set is usually a very expensive proposition. By playing ALL pairs you are naturally going to flop more sets. It seems to me that this must mean you're winning percentage on flopped sets will go down as well. Simple math states that you will run into bigger sets, straights and flushes (when you don't fill) more often than had you flopped this set under more appropriate circumstances. This might seem miniscule, but I would think it should subtract at least some, from profits on other sets which you flop under more ideal conditions. Then again, this might be a very dumb perspective but I do wonder what effect if any, it could have.
Kevin
He should probably lose w/ sets w/ a pretty similar percentage whether or not he limps early or sneaks in late w/ the pocket pair. I don't think that the fact that he'll lose more w/ sets b/c he's making more sets should factor in b/c he'll invariably win more pots w/ sets as well. Unless there is something about the hands that are in the congo-line of callers after he limps early(ie, maybe he's encouraging more Pocketpairs to see a flop) that would cause small-middle sets to lose more, but I don't think it'd be enough to weigh in to consideration.
Yes, but when you sneak in late with a pocket pair, you have the luxury of knowing the pot status, ie. is it raised?, how many callers, the types of players in, etc. This information is important, since it means you will rarely flop a set of 4's only to look at a set of Q's. You won't be able to prevent these costly situations from an early position. I agree he will no doubt win more sets, but my point was that he should lose more as well. Of course, you always like it when you flop a set, but they're not automatic winners, especially smaller ones. Being out of position means you may encounter difficulties in making it incorrect for certain draws to continue against you. So, you lose a larger percentage of the time when the draw correctly gets there, and you don't fill up. This might be a nitpick, I don't know.
Kevin
Rick-
Would you still have a problem with this raise if the limper were weak/tightish AND both blinds were tight enough to both fold say, 30% of the time?
In this case, I actually like the raise. I'd also like to know if I'm wrong to like it. 66 is a small favorite vs. two overcards heads up. In addition, you have position and a bunch of scare card outs to go along with the two other sixes. You often will be getting 3:2 (assumes you bet the flop) on this play, with a hand that could very well be best after the flop anyway.
I think 66 is MUCH better than 33 or 44 in this spot, since there are many more flops in which you will have an overpair or some type of straight draw which could give you powerful semi-bluffing opportunities on later streets. I'd appreciate your comments Rick.
Kevin
You are correct in viewing 66 as much better than 44 or 33. 66 can be a good second pair (higher than middle pair but lower than top pair) especially when the flop is Ten-high or lower as well as being an overpair to the board on occasion. Having a good second pair in a shorthanded, unraised pot is almost as good as having top pair sometimes.
I agree with your thinking. As Rick said, it's close between calling, folding and raising anyway. Once you have the conditions you stated, then the raise starts making good sense.
These simple hands still confuse the heck out of me. My AA went down in flames on this hand. Should I have bailed? Or should I have stayed and tried to make a recovery?
2 limpers, and I raised with two black Aces. The BB calls (All typical players).
The flop came 6d,3s,2d. Checked to me and I bet, BB (check) raises, others fold, I call.
The turn was the Tc. BB bets, I raised, he thinks and re-raises, I folded?!!
While it's possible he had 63s,62s,32s, I didn't think it was likely. He may have had a pair with a draw, but it was very doubtful in my mind that he'd 3 bet such a hand. I was fairly sure he had flopped a set.
I had anywhere from zero (if he had flopped a str8) to eight outs (assuming he had no diamond re-draw) and it was sure to cost me another two bets. I never show my hands when mucking, so the gentleman next to me, who appeared to be a very good player said, "AK is the most over rated hand". When I responded "what makes you think it was AK?" (which I regret having said), he replied, "AA was a call my friend". Was it really that cut and dried? Thanks for any help.
Kevin
the only mistake was th.s: you should have had it made up in your mind what you would do if reraised on the turn. if you knew you would call his 3 bet or reraise back then your raise was the right move. if you knew you would fold to his reraise then i believe a call was the right move.
just ask yourself, "am i going to let this guy push me around?" if you answer yes than you at least have a call to the river with AA and this board. for gosh sakes he couldve played JJ that way.
what mid-limit game are you playing in where you havent thought this sort of thing out a little more? can i have the address?
asd said "what game are you playing in that you haven't thought that out a little more, can I have the address"
You can't make a decision like that before hand, unless you play system cards. "I have AA call, call, call, call, call, is it good? Nice beat." While he could be ready for such a situation, the variables that go into that sort of decision are player based, which need to constantly be adapted. Can I have the address of where you play, because I know what to do with sytem players.
I think my problem was that I did make a decision before hand. I had pre-decided that he was either getting fancy with a draw, or that I was drawing very thin. I felt there was no chance he could've played JJ that way. If there were, I certainly would've called such a player down. (as I've done many times before)
I appreciate your taking the time to comment. btw- This game was at Harrah's Casino in East Chicago, IN but if it's my play in particular your after, I normaly play at Hollywood Casino in Aurora.
Kevin
So you got the game all figured out, and you want the address, well son bring your best game and Kevin, me and the boys will show you a good time at the felt jungle.
Less you forget Rounder played by us for a while, he don't play no more.
SPM,...looking for a little action...
okay so i got cocky, but i really think you misplayed this. as did the guy sitting next to you. im not a system player nor would i advocate such a silly idea.
your opponent showed aggression on the flop so you raised him on the turn.. you had to have at least taken a second to wonder if you would fold to a reraise and why. i think a flat call on the turn (And river) wouldve been in order here. you let him push you off your hand and there's several hands he couldve held that were not as strong as your AA that he couldve done it with.
I'm not disagreeing with you. The mistake was raising the turn, instead of calling the hand down. I DO think my fold was correct, since this particular player doesn't make it 3 bets without a minimum holding of a set. But that's not the point. Your correct to say my raise on the turn was poor. I suspected that even before I posted the hand.
I never had a problem with your original response. Cocky or not, you gave an honest opinion. That's all I look for, whether I played a hand well or not. In this case, I suffered a brain lapse. It happens.
Kevin
You raise on the button with AA. 4 way action.
Flop: 632 with 2 dimaonds. BB checkraises you. The other players fold. You smoothcall.
Turn: Tc
For all intents and purpoese, that turn card is a blank. It didn't improve his hand unless he held pocket Tens (which would be consistent with his preflop call and flop checkraise).
In any event, if you disregard TT, why is raising the turn so quickly poo-pooed (sp?) here?
Your decision on how to play this hand must be guided by what you know about this player. I can see several hands that he could have where it is absolutely correct for you to raise the turn eg. 65. There are also several hands that he could have that you beat when it still might be incorrect for you to raise the turn eg. Any pocket overpair to the flop with which he might checkraise the flop but fold to your raise on the turn.
The beauty of having AA on a flop such as this against a single opponent is that you have several ways of playing the hand. These include 3 betting the flop, raising the turn, calling all the way or even waiting until the river to raise. All can be correct and you ought to use them all depending on your read of your opponent.
In this instance, with a board of T632, I would think that some of my opponents have a mere 2 outer with an overpair to the flop and are good enough to release it if I raise. In that case, I would not raise. If they had an overpair to the turn, very few are good enough to release it but other than JJ, it is reasonable to assume that he would have 3 bet preflop if he had an overpair to the turn.
Some will call with a 2 outer like 88. Against them, I will raise.
Many opponents could call with a wide range of hands from the big blind and could well have flopped a 9 outer with a hand like 65. You can bet your booties I am going to raise the turn and charge them extra to draw. Many of thenm will also call my river bet if they miss with their pair of 6's or whatever just in case I tried to outmuscle them with AK.
I should also add that if one of the other limpers had called the bb's checkraise on the flop (and if you chose just to smoothcall the flop), you should definitely raise the turn when the ten hits if bb bets and limper just calls. There could be a lot of colective outs against you. For example, if bb has 65 and the limper has 2 diamonds, there are 16 bad cards for you on the river. But that means there are 26 good cards. You are getting 2:1 on your raise as they will both likely call. Failing to raise there is just giving up too much.
As it was, on your hand, you probably made a good laydown when he 3 bet. Very few players have the balls to 3 bet here without a set (although KK could be an exception if he for some reason just chose to smoothcall preflop rather than 3 betting it).
In any event, my point is that raising the turn is not automatically an error. Often, it can be the correct play.
Whoa! Ok, back to the drawing board. Everything you stated, makes so much sense, that I'm now back to being confused about the hand.
Of course, I raised under the premise of the Tc being a blank for all intents and purposes. I also wanted to charge a worse hand with a possible draw, and/or an over pair, which I felt this particular player calls me down with. But within that premise was also the fact that I didn't feel he'd 3-bet a worse hand or even two pair, since I thought this player to be timid enough to worry about my having TT.
So, does this mean it's possible I played it right? The way I see it, it kinda comes down to confidence in your ability to read the player. Players capable of 3-betting a worse hand, you're gonna have to call down, especially when the draw(s) does not get there. If not, why make the raise, right? With other players, a 3 bet is all but certain to mean you are severely behind.
Your reasons for when to call/when to raise on the turn seem absolutely correct to me. What about 3-betting the flop? Now, if check/raised on the turn, is it easier to call it down? Thanks skp.
Kevin
it's a matter of inconsistency on your part here. if youre going to raise on the turn, i still dont really like your fold.
with that board he can, if he wants to be optmistic, presume that you are on a semibluff draw. so your raise would be correct but so would his 3 bet with JJ (or even a preflop-smoothcalled QQ or KK) and some other hands you have enough outs against to proceed. i agree that when you are 3 bet on the turn it 'looks' like you are beat, but you still have an AA that he could easily be thinking is AK or worse. perhaps you think you have a good read on him, but perhaps he saw you do something, or he 'think' he saw you doing something previously that has led him to discount your preflop raises. or maybe he has a read on you as someone who will laydown a decent hand?
it isnt so much your turn raise that i hated, but your FOLD. everyone else liked your fold but i think you owe it to yourself to see the river and call your opponent down here. youre probably beat, but i believe you have the odds to call him down here. skp defends your play well, but brier's post is the key here to seeing why raising is a mistake and why calling to the river is your best course of action here.
good hand btw, thanks for posting it!
I am not sure that there is any inconsistency in raising the turn and then folding to a 3 bet. At one point in time, Kevin thought he had him beat. An instant later, it was "oops" time.
That said, if your point is that he could (should) have called the 3 bet, well I certainly wouldn't quibble with that very much. I just about never fault a guy for not making a laydown in a heads-up situation particularly with AA.
I also think that calling the turn and then calling the river is a viable option and should be done now and then. But the reason for doing that should not be solely because you don't want to be 3 bet. As well, there are costs to playing this way too often i.e. you don't charge your opponents to draw, you don't maximize your wins, you may portray a weak-tight image etc.
Sure, you can 3 bet the flop. You probably do that now and then with AK here particularly if the flop has 2 parts to Broadway. So, you have to do that now and then with big pockets as well.
Then, if he checkraises you on the turn, you will probably have to call in a heads-up situation with AA. A checkraise though noteworthy is of course not as scary as the 3 bet that the bb put on you in your actual hand.
.
I've seen you play, and believe me, I am and will continue to take your money, and you will never know who is doing it.
I'd be careful going after SPM. He's got lots of influence. From the aldermen of VOP, to the backstreet rif-raf of A2CT, not to mention all his friends from Border Town. If he were to call in a couple of favors...
ET,
Take off that silly tattered rain coat and wash the fake hair from your forehead.
You look ridiculous.
Posted By: Anonymous
I've seen you play, and believe me, I am and will continue to take your money, and you will never know who is doing it.
Sorry to disappoint you, I counted all my chips and none are missing. In fact I got some extra, step up to the table any time Anonymous. Any one can say they win the SPM's chips.
You better stay Anonymous, it will be easier for you to call yourself a winner.
SPM,...available, and never anonymous...
Kevin I think that when you get check-raised on the flop you should simply call and plan on calling to the river with your big over pair. If you win, you will collect something on every street and if you lose, you will at least lose the minimum without ever getting bluffed out. Suppose this were a $10-$20 game. Pre-flop there is $85 in the pot. On the flop another $40 is added bringing the total pot to $125. Now using your approach you raise on the turn and fold so it costs you $40 and you never get to see his hand to make sure you are beat. So you lose $40 and run the risk of either getting bluffed out or failing to improve when you would have thereby costing you an entire pot. Now under my scenario, I just call the turn and call the river so I invest the same $40. However, I never get bluffed out and I give myself the best chance to win the pot since I get to see a river card.
don't get into the habit of raising if you are in a situation where a re-raise is going to be a [big] problem; this is a dilemma you REALLY want to avoid on the turn - for exactly the reason(s) Jim gave.
It can also become a nagging problem on the river in small to medium sized pots. It can be a problem on any round, in a pot of any size - but for reasons that should be obvious these are two of the "places" you truly don't want to allow it to happen.
You played this hand badly; you did not play it badly enough to warrant "asd's" comment.
I've been off the forum for a while, but to the best of my recollection this is the first time I've seen him get cranky - until there's a second time I'm going to chalk it up to him having had a bad day.
J-D
P.S. I DON'T have the luxry of knowing the tendencies of your opponent in this hand, but even if raising the turn was a mistake I think you made a good laydown when he 3-bet you. Most non-maniacal players want to be called when they 3-bet; the second raise is almost never a semi-bluff - it's usually a real hand. And in this case ALMOST all of the possible real hands he could have leave you drawing thin to dead.
Even if he did happen to have you beat with two-pair - and as you pointed out, with this board 2-pair is very unlikely - you only have 8 outs.
And you can't even be sure what your outs are; he would not be the first player ever to "protect" his blind with 32s, 62s, or even T6s.
Thanks for your comments J-D. I think you're 100% correct that raising the turn was a bigger mistake than folding to a re-raise.
As for asd's comments, they really don't bother me. I thought and played this hand very poorly and deserve reprimand. When I get to the point where I'm incapable of the occasional bad play, I guess I'll have no more use for this board or other forms of learning. Until then, I appreciate comments/criticisms even when harsh. Thanks again J-D
Kevin
don't get into the habit of raising if you are in a situation where a re-raise is going to be a [big] problem
This is very well put, if simple. I suppose in some ways it is covered in HPFAP, but not as well as it could be.
I haven't read all the posts in this thread so this comment may be a little off, but I believe that this thype of stuff is well discussed in THE THEORY OF POKER.
Thanks Jim-
I had decided on the flop, that he might be getting fancy with a draw hence, my raise on the turn. I would also make this raise against someone who I assess would pay me off with a worse hand or who would 3-bet a worse hand. After I raised, I had 2nd thoughts about assessment of this player's ability to make such a play even with two pair, so I folded.
I agree with you 100%, that in this case, it's better to simply call him down (maybe after 3-betting the flop?). I think there are times for this type of raise on the turn, but this was no doubt a poor one. Thanks Jim.
Kevin
Kevin:
Good post.
Without having a read on this player, this situation screams "SET!" to me.
I am curious of your thought process on the turn however. The BB has check-raised you on the flop. With this board, I now put him on one of the following hands. 4-5 (made straight, wants to put pressure on any diamond draw), a set (I think most would play a set fast here, i.e. check-raise, again to make any diamond draw feel much pressure), any overpair would be bet this way, or a diamond draw. When you just called his flop check-raise, what did you put him on? Had you made up your mind to raise on the turn upon smooth-calling his flop raise?
One thought here, and a play that I might make here, would be with Ad10d (Although I quite possibly fold this preflop). I would check-raise with the nut draw, I could also 3-bet this turn with this hand. Was this a player you saw capable of making plays such as this with a hand not already ahead of you. If not, then you made a great laydown. The one interesting dilemma here is that a player capable of such a play would not be there with a straight. He would however be there with a set, or an overpair. You stated that it was your thinking that he held a set. (FYI, I would have bet either you or Willy held a set when in fact you chopped with AQ).
My take here is that you gave the BB the opportunity to make a GREAT play against you. It is likely you were beat if he was as you stated simply a typical player, but if he was better than typical, there are an equal number of hands he might play this way that you have beat.
Matt
Thanks for your response Matt-
I played this one horribly and that's that! I think the key is in recognizing exactly what my mistake was, and why I made it.
I have little doubt that raising the turn was very incorrect. I thought this player capable of playing a draw in this manner on the flop, but incapable of any of the stronger plays you mentioned on the turn. If so, I call the hand down without reservation as I'm sure you know and have seen me do in the past. But I should never have put myself in this predicament here.
You are correct that my intention was to raise the turn immediately after he check/raised and made it heads up on the flop. But why? This was very poor thinking on my part, given the texture of the flop and what I knew about this player and his possible holdings. This was the mistake as far as I'm concerned. You are right that against a more creative player, I might be giving him a chance to make a great play. (Then again, it might be correct to give such a player this opportunity, so I can foil it). The fold, I can live with, since I'm quite sure I was drawing slim to dead in this particular case. Thanks Matt.
Kevin
Kevin, I hate to add to your confusion here but ...
Let me 1st state that I think your raise on the turn was questionable, but NOT nearly the diaster you seem to indicate.
You state in your response to Matt
" I thought this player capable of playing a draw in this manner on the flop, but incapable of any of the stronger plays you mention on the turn"
So why not go ahead and make your play on the turn? To use a term I've seen you use here, if he rereaises, you can now fold with IMPUNITY.
When I first read Jim Brier's response, I agreed that he would spend the same ($40) but he would force the other player to show down his hand. Now I'm not so sure, if, as you stated he was capable of, the player was driving a draw, you make much more, and YOU GOT YOUR ANSWER (he reraised and you folded) for the same amount of $$.
So let's say the player doesn't reraise you on the turn and your pocket rockets hold up..are you now a hero for your excellent raise on the turn that maximized your hand?
As some of the others have suggested, I believe that the play of this hand is VERY situational based and can only be answered with the proverbial "it depends"
I'll bet if you would have walked away from the table and written down all your thoughts and feelings at the moment, you would remember the "reasonableness" of your play. It seems to me that you have analyized this play under the light of day and cold hard facts and you now doubt yourself. However, as we all know, playing poker isn't only about cold hard facts, facts are hard to come by and generally aren't know till the hand is over. I think you reacted to a read on the other person's attempt to make a play, then you folded when you were certain you were beat. Sounds like good poker play to me!
I have never played against you, but I can assume from the depth of your posts and the comments I hear from those who have played against you.....maybe you should quit second guessing yourself so much? :-)
Just my two cents worth
BH
.
Poker players,
I was in the 10-20 game a couple nights ago, and the chips were flying. I was losing and taking my fair share of pots, and the lineup was tough. I was in the 1 seat. Here's one hand I remember in particular. I had 87 in middle position, no pre-flop raises, five callers.
FLOP: A 9 6 rainbow - gave me an open-ended straight draw. I love running semi-bluffs with these types of draws...on good days, players will check to me on the turn, and I can get a free card if I'm in late or last position. The 8 seat BB checked, the 10 seat bet, I raised. Question...should I have raised here and risked running the other players out of the hand? My reasoning was, by raising, I was representing at least a pair of Aces. I hoped to build up the pot and/or knock some weak draws out to get a better chance of winning the pot. If I hit my straight, I'll get a lot of action from the players with pairs and two pairs. The 5 seat folded, 6 seat called, BB folded, and the 10 seat reraised. Here's my main question...if I'm running a semi-bluff, and I get reraised, should I cap it or should I just call? I called, and the other players called. When the 10 seat reraised, I put him on a pair or two pair.
TURN: 10. Perfect. 10 seat bet out, I raised. Players inbetween folded. 10 seat reraised. I capped it. He called.
RIVER: 8. 10 seat bet, I called...mostly because I no longer had a nut straight (no flush possible,) even though there was almost no chance he'd have QJ with the way he was betting the hand. He turned over 99 for a flopped set. I turned over the 87 for the straight. Question...should I have raised here or just called like I did and went to the showdown?
Any comments are appreciated!
Scott
I don't like your raise on the flop. First of all you're driving out all the callers you want in. Second, there's an ace on the flop. In my experience it's difficult to get players to release an ace in a loose game. Third, your only out is the str8.
Now if you have QJ and the flop is 9-10-x I would make that raise to drive out the better Q's and J's. Or if there are players trapped between the initial bettor and myself (and I feel the bettor won't re-raise) I'll sometimes make that raise.
On the turn, you've got the nuts. Raise, re-raise and raise again.
On the river you still have the best. You're right when you say there is no way he has QJ. Raise 'til you're all in.
Scott,
After the flop, I'd have to agree with Winger. With the type of drawing hand that you have, it's best to have as many callers as possible so you get paid the max if you hit. I understand the free card concept with your raise, but I'd probably just call here. On the turn, you gotta keep raising until it's capped because you got the nuts. When I was reading all the action that took place on the turn, I actually felt that Seat 10 had the straight also. Most good players will put you on the straight after your raise, so it doesn't make too much sense to reraise you unless Seat 10 also has the nuts. However, due to your raise on the flop, it's possible that you might have 66 or mabye even A10.
After the river shows a one card for the straight and Seat 10 still bets, I'd assume that you had the same hand and just call. However, a raise just in case Seat 10 doesn't have a straight wouldn't be a bad play.
Glad you won the pot!
I don't like raising on a draw when you have several players left to act who will call one bet but not two.
Your opponent way overplayed his hand. Given the action I probably would have raised him on the river.
Players,
This hand took place before the 87 hand I was talking about in my last post. I had AdQc in middle position. Two people called, the 10 seat raised, I called, and three others called before the flop. The 10 seat is a good player, and he usually won't raise in early/middle position with anything less than AA, KK, or AK.
FLOP: Q 7 4 rainbow
Players checked to the 10 seat, and he bet. I raised...is this a good idea, knowing almost for sure he's got an overpair? I was "hoping" he had KK or AK so that an Ace or a Queen could help me out. The crazy players between us called the bets cold, and the 10 seat reraised me. I called, and everyone else called....my guess is they called because of the huge pot we built up.
TURN: Q
The 10 seat bet out again, I raised this time, and this one knocked everyone between us out. My reasoning was, now that I have trips with a bullet, if he DOES have Aces, he has one out...the case Ace. If he has Kings, he needs another King to show up. The 10 seat called.
RIVER: Ace of Spades
S!#@$. He bet, and I just had to shake my head and call. Normally, Queens full of Aces is a great hand...but I called just to get to the showdown. The pot was already big enough, and if he had anything else but AA, I'd win the pot. Needless to say, he had exactly AA, and he took it down with Aces full.
Was I out of line by seeing the flop and the turn? Again, comments are appreciated.
Scott
"The 10 seat is a good player, and he usually won't raise in early/middle position with anything less than AA, KK, or AK".
Your AQo is obviously dominated. If this opponent is truly this straightforward and predictable, this should be an easy preflop fold.
Matt
Why would you call a raise by a player who "normally only raises with AA, KK or A-K" with AQ? Your hand is a huge dog before the flop.
On the flop, would he bet AK? If he would you played correctly. When he re-raises and with the pot as big as it is I too would take one off hoping I have 5 outs. Bad luck on the river, but you got what you deserved for getting involved pre-flop.
If you knew the 10 seat was a solid player, who, by raising in early position, had a strong hand, why would you call? I am reading John Feeny's (Inside the Poker Mind) book right now and he discusses this exact topic (calling with AQ in middle position vs. an early position raise). Essentially he says that he loves having players in his game who make this call. If this player was the solid player that you say he was, he should only raise with group I, II, and sometimes III hands from early position. This means that more often than not (I think Feeny says around 75% of the time) when you are holding AQ in middle position against an early raiser, you are beaten.
I used to make this mistake too, so don't let it get you down...just avoid doing it in the future.
Take care, Jason
I agree with everyone above. Knowing what you did about this player you should have folded.
Put it this way. When you called, what sort of flop were you hoping for? Any A you may be dominated, any K (with or with out an A) you are dominated. Q? There are only 3 of them left and if it hits you are only a 4:3 favorite to have the best hand (12 ways he could have AK vs 9 ways he could have AA, KK). So you are drawing to three outs on the flop and even when you hit one you will be leading only 57% of the time and when you are not you will end up paying dearly for it.
Really you are hoping to flop QQX and even then you may end up losing (as you infortunately found out).
Regards,
Paul Talbot
Players,
Thanks for your posts. If my hand was suited, I should have gotten involved, maybe. Just another example of a marginal hand being worth a little profit or a huge loss.
Scott
one other thing, you should rarely flat call a raise with A-Qo. definitely pump or dump. obviously in this case it was dump situation.
Where is the ten seat? to your right? I always think it is better just to say where the bettors are in relation to where you are...
But I think you pbly fold preflop, but if you are going to play you should reraise and get it heads up. Your knowledge of the players will decide the best course of action.
On the flop, I aggree you should raise. Unfortunately part of your reason to raise didn't work out you didn't get it heads up... YOu don't say how many people took the flop or called on the flop. Sounds like your play on the flop is routine as a) you have to raise when bet into with what is often the best hand b) when raised, you have to call as you are pbly getting something like 24-1 on your final call. (and you have at least 2 outs unless he unfortunately has QQ).
If you KNOW that the raiser will only raise with AA, KK, or AK, you MUST fold AQ offsuit even if you are already in for one bet.
I would be far more willing to throw in another bet with 87s than with AQ offsuit.
The chances of getting a flop you can be happy with are TINY. The only time you can like it is IF you flop a queen AND he only has AK.
Or if you flop 2 queens - but even this is not infallible, as you found out.
Even if you are in for one bet you should throw em in the muck if he is such a tight raiser.
Let me give you an example.
One night I was playing and an old retiree 'rock' was sitting on my right. I also play tight and both of us were in very few pots period, much less together in a pot.
He always looked at his hole cards in such a way that I could see them, so if I knew I wouldn't play a hand I would peek. I saw him muck AK offsuit preflop when there was no preflop raise twice. In one hand he limped in with QQ. It got checked around on every round until the river when there were 2 pair on the board. Someone bet - an obvious ace high or bluff - and he mucked saying 'nope, these ain't any good no more'.
Anyway, one hand I picked up KK. I was all set to raise when suddenly *HE* came out with a raise! Those kings hit the muck as fast as if they were 83 offsuit. When he raised everyone at the table was shocked - all the limpers mucked too! They all knew what he had as well as I did.
Anyway, the point is - don't play a hand that has no chance of winning. In some hands AQ offsuit can be huge - in others it can be completely drawing dead.
Let me give you an example.
I was on the button with QQ one hand. Raise from early position, reraise from a very loose player, so I just called. Ended up getting capped.
Now, the reraiser is very loose and bluffs too often but he won't reraise or cap without some kind of hand. Or so he thinks.
Flop comes 966 with 2 hearts. Bet from early position, reraiser just calls. Now, I have to find out here and now if I'm against KK or AA so I raise. The bettor kind of shakes his head and calls - I know he has AK. He has a lot of tells.
Other capper calls.
Turn is blank, check check I bet they call.
River is a third 6 giving me 6's full of queens.
Check check I bet fold, capper calls.
I win. The loose capper had AQ suited (Not hearts!) The other guy had AK.
Now, What % chance of winning that pot did AQ have? Almost nil.
He was drawing dead to an ace - there was AK out there. He was drawing dead to a queen - one would give me a set.
I guess the best possible flop for me would be AQx. AK would have top pair, I'd have a set, and AQ would have top 2. I woud have gotten unlimited action.
Anyway. the only way AQ could win would be to make a straight or a flush - assuming one of us didn't fill up along the way.
-SmoothB-
"The 10 seat is a good player, and he usually won't raise in early/middle position with anything less than AA, KK, or AK."
His way too tight raising requirements do not make him a good player. Maybe he's a good player for other reasons but this ain't one of them.
Frankly, I have never seen a *good* player who only raises with AA/KK/AK in early/middle position.
nt
--Was I out of line by seeing the flop and the turn? Again, comments are appreciated--
If raiser tight as you say you way out of line calling that raise with AQ. After that you probably in for river. Your bad call will cost you lots in long run.
Here's a funky one. Please ignore the pre-flop call. I'm very new to 20-40, so the more detail you can give me the better.
Eight-handed; I'm in cutoff. UTG is a calling station and played 32o the previous hand. She calls. It's raised by a good player who plays tight after the flop but loose pre-flop. Loose passive player on my right calls. I call with Kh7h, then undergo a full body stutter realizing what I'd done as coach says "I never play that there." Hey, before this hand me neither! Button calls - a solid tight player who can be aggressive with the button. BB calls. $220 in pot.
Flop 9c7s2c. All check to me. I bet, the button obliges with a raise, both calling stations call, and the other two drop. Pot $380.
Turn is Ts. Check to me. I bet. Button raises. Both calling stations call. That's $660 vs. $40. I FOLD on gestalt. Coach is most displeased and I agreed with him, but in retrospect given what I know about the players I think it was correct. The question is what kind of odds was the pot giving me?
Additional info: both calling stations definitely had a draw or one pair. Both would bet top pair on the flop and likely on the turn. Button would never raise without at least top pair and usually would require more, especially acting after me.
I figure I had the equivalent of less than 3 outs due to flush and straight possibilities potentially killing Kc, 7c, Ks and even all three kings if someone had QJ. Plus there'd be additional money lost for hitting my hand and running into a better one.
Aside from the initial call, what do you all think? My rationale for the bet on the turn was that the button would likely have raised the flop with overcards and definitely would not bet them on the turn, and the two calling stations had been dropping on the turn if they had nothing.
Thanks in advance.....
As you expect, pre-flop I don't think much of your cold-call of a bet and raise with King-shit suited.
Your flop bet with middle pair into a crowd of 5 players when a two flush flops is not recommended especially with a solid player yet to act who called two bets cold pre-flop. You probably don't have the best hand and you could easily get raised. You have 5 outs which is an 8:1 shot but the Kc or the 7c may give someone a Club flush or a draw to a Club flush. My point is that you will not win 100% of the time even when you hit one of your outs. You should check.
Your turn bet makes even less sense. Do you think with the solid player raising and all those other players calling that no one can beat a lousy pair of Sevens? Furthermore, the Ts puts 3 cards in a straight zone (T-9-7) so a King could easily give someone a straight if someone does not already have a straight. As a minimum it puts a second overcard to your pair on the table. You should check and fold when the action gets back to you unless everyone checks.
You lost way too much money on this hand.
Matt,
It was fun to try to figure out which players you were talking about based on 2+2ish descriptions.
Preflop: Don't forget that when you're facing a bet, you have three choices. Next time the gamble urge hits in a spot like this, try runing with it, and three bet. It's WAY better than calling, and it only costs 1/3 more. Wrench the button away from the guy on your left. Throw fear back into the face of the guy who thought he liked his A-Q.
I like your bet on the flop. Probe, posture, thin.
I'm with Jim after that. I'd check and fold on the turn after everyone stays in. However, if you MUST put more chips in, I like the way you did it. Betting and folding to a raise is better than check-calling, possibly twice. Generally I need two convincings before I'm convinced. This hand, you got them, so say bye bye.
The extra calling-station players make check-folding on the turn a good play. Let's say you DO have the best hand on the turn, and the button had raised the flop to get a free-card, and then you give him one, and he checks the turn behind you. This is not quite the "mathematical disaster" that free cards often are, given the strength of your hand, and the sheer number of outs the field has against you.
The good news is that you could bet the turn and fold for one more bet for all the right reasons. The monster's leash grows shorter.
Tommy
--It's WAY better than calling, and it only costs 1/3 more. Wrench the button away from the guy on your left.--
Good idea, don't play shitty cards shitty :-)
I was reading an article, I think it was Roy Cooke, talking about how the bad choices in poker tend to have a snowball effect. I that that hand is a good example.
The cold call before the flop didn't just lose you $40 because you got hooked, and since the pot was large you ended up spending a lot more. All because of one lousy mistake.
This is so true. You start off playing bad cards in raised pots and you freqeuntly get thrown into marginal situations where the pot is large but your outs are few. When the session is over you wonder how you lost so much money.
Hey, can you play in my game please?
The Fish
Yeah, there are probably a lot of things you could have done differently here, starting with mucking BTF.
My comment is about the turn play. You bet, were raised and folded. I'm not sure it is ever correct, in limit play, to bed and fold to one raise. If you are not going to call one raise then you should not have bet.
"I am not sure it is ever correct in limit play to bet and fold for one raise."
On the turn it is frequently correct to fold when popped on the expensive street. In the games I play in, when a decent player raises you on the turn he can almost always beat top pair. It usually means two pair or something better. Here is an example:
A $10-$20 game. You limp in from early position with KhQh. A decent player limps in behind you. You take the flop 3 handed. There is $35 in the pot.
The flop is: Qs8d7c
The big blind checks. You bet and only the limper calls. There is $55 in the pot and two players.
The turn is: Jh
You bet and the limper raises. There is $115 in the pot. Despite getting almost 6:1 on the call, I would fold every time against a typical $10-$20 player. I am either drawing dead or playing 3 outs.
I would need a very sure read on the player to fold in that situation. It seems you are putting him on precisely QJ. Assuming he wouldn't play Q7 or Q8, and also assuming he didn't call on the flop with a gutshot draw in an unraised pot. He could have you beat with 78, in which case you have 8 outs instead of 3, (2 Qs, 3 Ks and 3 Js). Yeah he could have a set of 8s or 7s but I would normally call his raise and fold on the river if I don't improve.
He could have QJ or T9. T9 is 16 possible hands. QJ is 6 possible hands given your holding and what is now on the board. He could also have a set of Sevens or Eights and waited until the expensive street to pull the trigger. This would be six more possible hands. This totals 22 possible hands where you are drawing dead and 6 hands where you are playing 3 outs. Eight-Seven is 9 possible hands given the board where you have enough outs to justify continuing. Of the 37 total hands, there are 22 where you are drawing dead, 6 where you are playing 3 outs, and 9 where you have 8 outs. Run it through the computer and you will see that your call would be a long term money loser not to mention the times when you hit one of your outs only to discover that you were drawing dead and have to pay off at the river.
Thanks for the responses everyone (except Fish ;) ). It was indeed a silly hand on my part. River was the Ks. The UTG player won with 86 for the straight. Button mucked.
40/80 game. The button and the big blind are both very loose players....but not too aggressive.
I get AA 2 to the right of the button. One guy limps in front of me, I raise. The button calls, SB folds, BB calls, limper calls as well. We see the flop 5 handed for 4 BB.
The flop is Ks7c2d - checked to me, I bet. The button calls, the big blind calls, the limper folds. Pot is now 5.5BB
The turn is a 2s. The big blind bets. I call, the button now raises, and the big blind just calls. Before I make a decision on calling the button's raise, there is now 10.5BB in the pot, and I am likely have to put in another BB to showdown and hope one of these knuckleheads doesn't have 77 or a deuce. I have to hope that one of the was a spade draw, and the other only had a K, or both only had a K. I am not happy about having to put in 2 BB to showdown my hand.
I fold. The river comes a 5d. Big blind checks, button bets. Big Blind folds. The fact that the button bet the river does say there's a good chance he had a 2 or 77, since with just a K, he may be afraid the big blind had a 2, and probably would have checked it down.
Before I folded, I flashed my cards just a little (not a lot) as I folded...the player to my right asked later if I had AA because he thought he saw it. I told him "heck no, there's no way I fold AA". And he said, "oh, ok...I just thought I saw you flash AA, but I guess I was wrong".
doc said: "The turn is a 2s. The big blind bets. I call, the button now raises, and the big blind just calls. Before I make a decision on calling the button's raise, there is now 10.5BB in the pot, and I am likely have to put in another BB to showdown and hope one of these knuckleheads doesn't have 77 or a deuce. I have to hope that one of the was a spade draw, and the other only had a K, or both only had a K. I am not happy about having to put in 2 BB to showdown my hand. I fold."
sorry to quote so much, but the answer is in what's written here. it's a scary situation cause a loose (And as you see it "not too aggressive") button has raised you on the turn. so everything hinges on your read of him as not too aggressive the way i see it. if he's not too aggressive then he would probably only raise the turn with a hand that has you beat. but if you miread him at all he could be on a spade semibluff or he could be (foolsihly?) betting any number of pairs and draws that you have beat. who's to say he doesnt feel like gambling with a K? he assumes you only can have AA or a stronger kicker to beat him so he likes his chances. is he smart enough to realise that that board would look scary to you?
are you willing to fold AA with that many BB in the pot based on your read of this player? how sure are you he has a 7 or 2 vs your odds to call him down? i think you have a clear call to the river here. it will be interesting to see what other's say.
Any chance one of these guys has K7?
In general I would pay it off with this hand, but of course as always it "depends on the players" blah blah blah. For instance, would the BB bet out with a deuce here? Why would he not checkraise, you would certainly still bet AA or AK or KQ, etc. In my experience, players who bet out in these situations on the turn have a hand that they think may be best, but are afraid you will take a free card. So I'd often put him on a king, probably with a decent kicker.
Then, since your call shows weakness, the button might raise with a king as well. But it's hard to know. Would the button cold call with KQ or AK? Any chance he'd raise with something like A7s (and call preflop with it)?
At any rate, I think vs. the players I play with I would have raised the BB on the turn, and called down unless things got really crazy. But I have good game selection skills ;). Against better players a fold isn't bad.
>>Any chance one of these guys has K7?<<
D'oh!
How about KsQs?
D'oh! D'oh!!
"Against better players a fold isn't bad. "
Actually, against better players, I'd call...cause I'd doubt he'd call two bets on the button with a 2. I'd put him on 77 or KQ and call him down. It was the fact that this guy was such a loose player that made it possible that he could have a deuce.
Doc,
I just read the other responses after posting my own. Even if it is possible for the loose button to have a deuce, I also think it is possible he has a king or K7. So I still think my analysis below applies even if I discounted a button deuce at the time.
Regards,
Rick
Yeah, I see what your saying. I meant against players who don't overplay their hand postflop as much as the ones I play with, but I phrased it pretty poorly...
I'm just going to make a comment that is not specific to this hand. In general, I have found that in these situations, a good but not great hand like your two aces will win more often than you think is possible. For example, you point out that one of these one of these "knuckleheads" could have 77 or a deuce. If that's the case, why couldn't they be over playing a king and/or a spade draw. Given the number of bets in the pot, I would call every time. You will certainly lose more often than you will win, but I believe that your call is long term profitable.
Doc,
When the big blind did not reraise on the turn, I would discount the likelihood he has the deuce. I doubt the button has a deuce since he cold called a pre flop raise and there are two deuces on board. Of course he could have a set but there is a lot of doubt IMO. A K7 is another possible opponents holding. This hand would be played aggressively and you beat it.
With 10.5 big bets in the pot and a turn call that closes the betting, note that you are about half way to spiking a set of your own (22 to 1 against). Combine your redraw that would beat the hands you fear along with the chance that you are still leading and I would at least call the turn and probably the river too unless the big blind leads back into me after a spade hits the river.
It should go without saying that you should never flash your cards.
Regards,
Rick
I don't think folding is the right play here. The only way I fold in this situation were if I were against players who never bluff or semibluff or put on delayed moves. Otherwise one could have AK and the other could have 78s. It is entirely feasible. I understand they are loose but even most loose players don't call raises with deuces in their hands, unless it is A2. You holding AA makes that possibility less likely.
Look at the way the river played out. The BB check-folded. Almost surely a draw or a pair-draw, because if he had a K he surely should have a called with such a non-threatening board and a bloated pot. So that means he bet into you with a four-flush or a 78s type hand on the turn. Perhaps these players are a little more aggressive than you think.
I agree with what Mason said in his post. Even if you end up losing a majority of the time the pot size and the possibility that both opponents are overplaying their hands should make a call in your spot profitable.
Ok. I am a low limit player who has built a bankroll big enough to take shots at higher limits. In a 9-18 game I was getting completly run over, but I wasn't playing badly I thought. Well this one guy in paticular beat me twice and I was wondering if this was good play on his part and I didn't read it indicating I should stay down with the other fish. Ok here we go.
1st hand.. Me BB. 1 caller. My enemy in the cutoff calls button calls. SB folds. I check my K9s.
flp: Kx5.. I go for a check raise. It works. me and my enemy are heads up.
Turn: 9 no flush or st8 apparent. I bet. He raises. He seemed a little cocky so I almost reraised him, but I didn't. I call.
river blank. I check and call he turns over pocket 5's.
I'm not complaining that I got a bad beat. I am wondering if I made a bad read and others more advanced would have figured out what I didn't. He laughed as he told me he let me know on the turn.
2nd hand. BB again with J5s. Same situation. I check,
flop: 257 rainbow. I bet. he calls. button calls.
turn: 7 i check. gets checked around.
river: blank. I check. enemy calls. button calls. I call because I don't think he has shit. he turns over J5 and button has pocket 4's.
Is J5 and pocket 5's something I would normally see in the cutoff in higher limits? I know to play a little less tight in late position, but I wouldn't think to play these hands with only 1 or two callers. The reason I am asking this is because this player was very cocky and staring at me, etc trying to get me off my game so it made me curious. thanks in advance.
If he played J5 there he is a moron. You played both hands fine, though I would bet again on the turn in the second hand.
Sounds to me like you may not be confident enough in your game to move up in limits yet. Wait till you're the cocky one ;) (and then learn humility all over again).