![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I was reading an article on the internet the other day about a hand that Johnny Chan played and I was very suprised by the way Chan played the hand. You can read the article at. http://members.iquest.net/~brikshoe/Chan_profile.html
The second half of the article talks about a 5 day marathon game between Johnny Chan, Chip Reese, Doyle Brunson, Roger Moore, and a French millionaire. In which there was a very strange hand. I'll post the exerpt here. ------------------------------------------------------- It started with the Frenchman, showing a ten of diamonds, raising Doyle Brunson's jack. Chan showed a six but had a pair of kings (one of them a diamond) underneath; he re-raised, which forced out Brunson, then watched the Frenchman re-raise him. "He don't know what I'm raising on," Chan said, "so when he re-raises, I figure he's trying to sell me on his hand. Make me think he has trips or a pair of hidden aces. But I peg him for two high diamonds in the hole, ace and queen. I know by now he likes to raise on the come. I know if he's got trips, he just calls there to suck me in." On the next card, the French-man caught a ten of clubs, giving him a pair of tens showing; Chan picked up a four of hearts. When the Frenchman bet his pair of tens, Chan raised, then watched the Frenchman re-raise him again.
Almost anyone else would have taken the re-raise to mean the Frenchman now had trips or at least two pair and that it was time to fold. But to Chan it meant the opposite: "When he re-raised me" Chan said, "I knew for sure he's playing two high diamonds in the hole. No way he re-raise me earlier on a pair of tens. And if he got aces with the tens, he don't re-raise me now because he gotta be scared 1 have trips the way I'm betting."
On fifth street, the Frenchman caught a seven of diamonds and Chan got a nine. Still with only a pair of kings, Chan re-raised again in the face of the Frenchman's bet, and this time got only a call. "I figure he still needs a card to make his hand, I gotta bet mine for value. Even though I know he's got four diamonds, he's still about a two-to-one dog against me."
After the sixth and seventh cards were dealt, Chan still hadn't improved. But when the Frenchman bet, Chan called the $38,000 pot with his lonely pair of kings. All that early raising and re-raising, and Chan was certain the Frenchman had nothing in his hand but dreams. Sure enough, the Frenchman's last card — a nine of clubs — hadn't helped; his first two hole cards were the ace and queen of diamonds. Exactly as Chan had figured. -------------------------------------------------------
It seemed to me that Chan was fishing pretty hard here. Saying that he is a 2-1 fav on 5th. With a pair and a 4th flush pluss and overcard to Chan's pair the French player was actually the 2-1 fav or better. For Chan to say "I figure he still needs a card to make his hand, I gotta bet mine for value" sounds like he has no idea what is going on and has little understanding of basic seven card stud fundamentals. He was just lucky to end up with the winner at the showdown. Has anybody heard this story before? What does everybody think about how Chan played this hand?
Comments appreciated
I'm sure Mr. Chan would be willing to play anyone here in a stud game. Of course, no one that has been criticizing his play would risk enough money to make it interesting.
First, the story is being told by a reporter with dubious ability to relate the facts. Second, given the discussion that Chan *relates* a bet on 5th street is correct. If you don't see this then I recommend not getting into any tough, shorthanded 7 stud games. We are given less than complete information about the dead cards (i.e. the suits) and Chan had all the information. Chan is representing a very big hand here, why would he check 5th street? Even if he is a slight underdog through the hand, He's not an underdog for the 6th street card! In addition, he gives a sharpened hatchet to the frenchman if he just calls. Can you see why? If you can't, I suggest you analyze the play on 6th street in the different scenarios that are likely to unfold.
I suggest you don't have any idea what you are talking about. There is no bluffing or plays to be made at this point the pot is 38,000. The best hand at the showdown will win this hand. And the Frenchie is a BIG favorite to have the best hand by the showdown thats a fact. If you still don't understand this I'd be happy to play YOU heads up or sit in any game you sit in as my EV goes through the roof as soon as you sit down.
THEY have a knack of seeing that one move consistingly that a amature will over see. Chan knew he had 2 high diamonds in the pocket, what you fail to understand he observed. Didn't you read his rational thinking how he came to this conclusion??? after 5 days!!! how he likes to play draws this way... precision hand reading is and art in its self...especially in high stakes poker
Is Can going to push the French off a hand? No, of course not. That's why he should check call fifth. I don't care if Chan pairs his board on sixth, the French is calling it all. Each raise Chan put in on fifth showed a lack of understanding, that's what I am saying. And I will play Chan, 3-6 at Foxwoods. I will buy in for forty dollars.
Ship it,
I'm not here to battle egos and say that I would happily play you head's up (but I would). And isn't that the beauty of poker? That our two opinions can be so different and we can each be confident of our own success? Of course, my opinion just happens to coincide with a two time world champion and second money leader in World Series history who frequently plays in the biggest games with the best players in the world. Yours coincides with . . . yours.
I guess I'll have to go through the process of explaining the value of the play, because your mind isn't open enough to consider the value of a world class player's decisions (Chan).
The players have put in several bets on the first 4 streets, the pot is quite large. Could you agree that Chan has enough equity in the hand to call a 5th street bet? Good, I thought so. Who has position in this hand, (and is likely to keep position through the hand)? Chan, Correct? Chan is basically representing rolled up 6's in this hand. He knows that the french man doens't have trip 10's (because of his 'read'). Why would trip 6's just call based on the frenchman's 5th street card? Is Chan supposed to change the hand he's representing on 5th street? That would seem intuitively bad. And it is!
Think of the possible scenarios on 6th street:
Case 1) French catches a diamond.
a) Chan improves his hand
b) Chan fails to improve.
If Chan improves he may have the opportunity to look at 7th street without a bet in order to fill up. This is a huge advantage, because his chances of filling up may be small (if he makes two pair). In addition, if his board pairs, he may win the pot right there.
If Chan doesn't improve, he checks behind French or folds to a bet.
Case 2) French doesn't catch a diamond and fails to improve.
a) Chan improves his hand
b) Chan fails to improve.
In either case Chan bets and then evaluates the 7th street play based on a new read. (This mostly involves the decision to bet for value). He calls to in order to pick off the bluff which he does.
If I understand your idea, Chan should call on 5th street, uh . . . call on 6th street if French doens't improve and the what on 7th? Call? Sounds strong, I would be terrified to play someone who employed this strategy.
Ed,
You make some excellent points. However, if Frenchy buys Chan's representation of trip 6's, why does he bet out? We haven't considered that Frenchy may have read Chan for a big pair in the hole by this point of the hand, and knew the correct odds(~1.5-1 in his favor).
Frenchy HAD held his own(relatively) for four days against Chan, Doyle, Chip and Moore. Not bad.
IMO if Chan just calls 5th, he saves bets if Frenchy catches an A,T or Diamond on 6th. He get's the 'missed' bets back, on 6th, when he can raise as a fave if Frenchy bricks.
No way Frenchy folds under any circumstances in this hand, the pot's too big.
Bill
You guys can stop licking Chan's balls. He made a mistake, not a huge won, but a fundamental error. No, he is not a true pisser, he just made an elementary mistake on one street. Since no is folding in the hand, not even Chan (anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong). Chan just thought he had the better hand when he didn't. I still claim the Frenchy is better than a 2-1 favorite. You simply cannot justify his play. He did an amazing job on every other street however, and thats what makes him one of the greats.
Chan: KdKc/6c4h9h Frenchy: AdQd/TdTc7d
If Doyle had: Jh, Chan is a 1.59-1 dog Jd, Chan is a 1.43-1 dog.
If they both brick on 6th, Chan becomes a 1.18-1 fave.
If Chan pairs one of his board cards on 6th and Frenchy bricks, Chan becomes a 2.35-1 fave.
So, IMO, Chan should've checked behind on 5th, so that he saves a bet if Frenchy flushes or trips on 6th. IMO the only reason for Chan to bet 5th would be if it might make Frenchy fold two small pair on the river, which it wouldn't have, or gain an extra bet if they both make monsters(unlikely).
Frenchy's river bluff was moronic, but he played the rest of the hand right.
Difficult to do all the math at the table, but a player of Chan's calibre should know that a four flush/underpair/overcard on 5th is not a 2-1 dog against a pair.
that the writer is recounting the hand accurately.
A big if.
Bill,
It's difficult to dissect a hand told 3rd party. You make some strong points also. In considering French's play, I don't think he played particularly well. He overplayed his hand by a lot, early. At some point in the hand, a strong player is going to give his opponent credit for a great read or a big hand, either way, the gratuitous raises were not sound.
In addition, when you consider the match up on 5th street, an important calculation is the chances of French making the flush (or catching a 10 or Ace) on 6th street. When you do the calculations for 2 cards to come it will skew your results because there is another betting round on 6th street. Chan is not an underdog when just considering 6th street. The only cards that are horrible for Chan on 6th are a 10,Ace or diamond, and I feel that the other advatages of raising on 5th outweigh the consideration of being a slight underdog thru 7th street.
The money in the pot is significant in that it makes the tactical play more important than the 'odds' play. Raising costs Chan an extra bet when French catches a death card on 6th and Chan bricks, but he retains control of the hand, and will make more money if he improves. I feel that calling in this situation, is a weaker play than raising. If Chan were out of position the situation would be entirely different.
What you have here is one hand out of ? muucho. Johnny Chan explains the hand after the fact if we are to believe the reporter that this is Chan's explantion. Detailing after the fact is relatively easy and sometimes gets a little out of whack. The fact of the matter is that stud is played with hole cards. I don't care how good a read one has on another player you still must be unsure of what the other player has in the hole unless you see his cards. Chan may just have put this guy on a hand and decided for whatever resason to play the hand aggressively. I've done that. I've been correct a number of times and incorrect more often than I would like to remeber. But it is still only one hand in a marathon session.
Note that the Frenchman correctly (probably) put Chan on a big pair in the hole and believed that Chan would fold to his reraise when he paired his tens. I don't believe he reraised because he felt he was a favorite although I'm sure he felt he had outs. Now when Chan calls the pot is so big that he must continue on with his play of the hand and try to win anyway he can even with a fruitless bluff on the river. Chan probably considered the size of the pot more than what was let on in the detail of the hand.
We all know that calling a paired door card is normally a losing proposition. Chan knows that but sometimes you correctly or incorrectly call. Especially if the pot gets big. And maybe if you have been playing a marathon and feel you got a good read on an opponent. Still it was only one hand.
vince
Give Chan a break ... so he goofed on the odds, B.F.D. nothing worse than having rank amateurs find fault with a world class player... even at this level they make mistakes once in awhile.
JV,
What a clever person you must be. I'm sure to follow the wisdom of a person with such a refined way of expressing himself. One, who is likely not worthy to polish Chan's orange in stud or any other game. The raise on 5th street is correct, he is roughly a 2:1 favorite to be ahead after 6th street. And this is the last response I will ever make to any of your posts. There are plenty of bright, good people on this forum, and I won't waste my time with anyone less than civil.
To G. Ed Conly,
What can't you get? He is not a favorite on fifth street. Assuming no one is folding, Chan should not raise. Is that so hard? Let me repeat, when you are not a favorite (which has been verified a thousand times)and do not have a best hand, it is not correct to raise. Sure if the Frenchman misses on sixth, he is no longer the favorite but that doesn't matter until he misses on sixth street. And by the way, I am heartbroken that you won't respond to any of my posts, I might have to take some Nyquil to get to sleep at night.
This is the truth! He had the complete control of the situation since he had assumed his opponent so well. He could see every improvement of the french man (except the river---no doubt). Yep he played very very aggressive but he didn't win catching a miracle card...he won because of his incredible reading hands! Nice hand, Chan! Marco
Certainly there is no need for the sniping!
Anyway, I dont agree with the statement that you should never raise if you are not a favorite. If you think about Ed's post a litle, I think you will see that he made some valid points.
My guess about this whole brouhaha is that the reporter did not descibe the situation accurately or fully, and the issue of dead cards for frenchy is not completely resolved.
But Chan won, and he is one of the best players ever, and given a choice between him and the reporter of the story, I'll take Chan.
Pat
all those braclets ,all his millions, all you fault finders, do I since some jealousy in you "Ship It", come on you want Chan to return his braclets? give me a break!!!
JV,
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but G. Ed Conly is one of the best and brightest posters on this forum. His analyses are sound and he doesn't "imagine" what the ev of a situation is he works it out and he's right. If he says you're wrong, then you're wrong and it would serve you well to learn why you're wrong rather than be rude or obnoxious to him.
SammyB,
I didn't start the sniping. Mr. Conly did. I am glad to see that you think he is a good poster and a good card player. I could care less. I am telling Johnny Chan that he made a mistake, if I can tell Johnny Chan he made a mistake I think I have the right to tell G. Ed Conly he is wrong. The fact is Mr. Ed Conly is wrong. He makes some intesting points about what could happen on the later betting rounds but that doesn't change the fact that Chan knew his opponents hand, which was better than his own and raised, in a situation where his opponent wasn't going to fold. My claim that Chan made a mistake can be backed up by simulation. God himself could not argue that Chan was right to raise fifth street. This is an amazing blunder for such a good player, that is why I think the post is interesting. If a total pisser posted this same hand everyone would laugh and tell him to quit, but because Johnny Chan the master did it, it must be right since he doesn't make mistakes. By the way, for all of you that don't understand why Chan is not a favorite on fifth street, go play hold em. Get top pair bet it, if raised call it all, and if ever checked to you bet again. You will do fine over there. By the way, I am jealous of Johnny Chan. I am jealous of Micheal Jordan too, because he is a better basketball player than me. Oh yeah,I am also jealous of Tiger Woods, Randy Moss, Garry Kasparov and some others.
As a mainly hold'em player, I have some insight, I believe, into this hand. Ask yourself-would I play this hand differently IF I KNEW WHAT THE OTHER PLAYER HAS?? For example, I have not seen one post on this that considers the likelihood of Chan and Frenchy BOTH hitting two pair. Also, Chan can fold if frenchy hits a diamond on 6th, and he does not have the outdraw. This makes the math not as relebant as most of you believe. Ask what chances does frenchy have to make the hand ON A PARTICULAR STREET, not what are his chances to make the hand ON ALL STREETS. I believe this is what Chan's thoughts were. Finally, if Chan does know what his opponent has, AND he hits a pair on board also BEFORE Frenchy hits another diamond(or even if on the same street, Chan has some added equity on out re-drawing Frenchy. I haven't seen any of you consider all these other "calculation oriented" scenarios. You have all just considered the odds of one particualr scenario-what is the afvoritism of frenchy's hand. Other things need to be considered also, most notably the redraw odds, and the both hitting 2 pair odds.
Yep, last 2 answers were good in my opinion. I played only 3 months at high limits at 5 card draw--- very famous game in Europe (with a deck of 32 cards, 4 players). Buy-in with all-in structure: about $5000. Half time hands were all-in. I called a guy who pushed all-in ($8,000 about) after drawing 1 card. I called him with 2 Jacks (almost nothing with 32 cards) and won! No doubt I was fool but I have a complete control of that player (very high staked but super aggressive). Same control (sorry for comparizon Chan) had Chan in that game. Odds, math, probabilities: all tells that have no value when you play 5 days long and when you are one of the best player in the world! Marco
Marco you need to look at this again - control or no control you can't change EV. This isn't about calling bluffs or making reads, the cards are all layed on the table. Chan is not in control if he is raising with the worst hand with the logic "I have a higher pair, he must hit to win." Pisser talk.
As Vince suggested, chan isn't folding even if a diamond hits, they are both flipping their hands over at the river.
Yep, but in relation of his good previous reading hand, he has 2 very very crying calls on 6th and 7th. It's certain, when Chan evaluated his opponent hand have to worry ONLY if frenchy has hidden Aces (very unlikely frenchy has tens in the hole)
Any word from Sklansky/Malmuth/Zee on this????? Where are you guys on these controversial issues?????
Sammy,
Thank you for the nice compliment. I am posting the following information for those players who care about a correct tactical evaluation of the situation. The bets on 6th street and 7th street are independent bets. It would be incorrect to establish that a drawing hand (albeit a favorite with two cards to come) is the betting favorite unless both players are all-in. With a bet to come on 6th street, the two events need to be considered independently. As an exposed hand problem, assuming that Chan had a 100% read on the hand, the following are true of the 5th street to 6th street probabilities:
P that Chan fails to improve folds to a bet on 6th street (French -A, 10 diamond): 22.99%
P that Chan wants a free card due to a certain combinations of cards falling: 7.01%
P that both players improve and Chan is still ahead of French: 4.63%
P that French improves, but Chan still must continue with the hand: 10.61%
P that French catches trip 10’s and Chan makes Kings up: 1.10%
P that Neither player improves: 53.66%
Notice that Chan will fold ~24.1% of the time on 6th street. Chan will bet on 6th street ~63.6% of the time! Chan will want a free card ~12.3% of the time.
These numbers should clarify the argument for a raise on 5th street. Being able to recognize this in the heat of battle is why Chan plays Killer Poker, and others make vulgar references that are supposed to pass as strength of conviction.
Ed,
Great post. I don't play much Stud, so this is a new concept to me. Did you factor in bets saved when Chan just calls on 5th, and the fact that Frenchy will not fold under any circumstances?
I'll do all the math when I have time(not that I don't trust your figures.... :) )
Bill
Bill,
I made further clarifications in a thread on the "High Stakes" forum, as Ray Zee had some thoughts about these same considerations. It's under 5th and 6th street probs.
you all are forgetting that if frenchie catches on 6th street then chan can fold...also the overall texture of playing may cause frenchie to pay off chan's big hands in future...he made a reeeel pro play..the advantage a top no limit player who has extreme confidence can have...imho
It may be intuitive that the made hand beats the underpair and the draw, but the hand that will win the most money by the river is the frenchy. Johnny Chan knew his opponents hand and couldn't play correctly. He should be stripped of his bracelets. Go back to no limit holdem, where the entire game is reading.
Just think you are sitting there all fustrated over Chan's unorthodox moves in no-limit holdem the power of money prevails and timely bluffs...and no "suspicious'" I did not miss the point in Ship It's fault finding of Johnny Chan's mis calculating the odds in that situation...its about sitting at the table for 5 days straight with the frenchman, you get to know how people play by then wouldn't you think....sometimes mathematics is not the reason to make your decisions, especially in high stakes poker.... Mr. Chan is a millionare by playing unsound poker in certain situations... so quit your bitching about it... ye mere mortal amatures. NIGHTSTICK CRACKS AGAIN.
1993 $1500 buy-in; beat Mansour Matloubi in the headup.
Nightstick,
You made some great points, but given the situation; limit poker(no matter how high the limits) and a big pot(Frenchy ain't folding at any point), Chan 'needs' to recognize an elementary 5th street matchup and act accordingly.
Bill
p.s. Chan is certainly one of the five greatest all-around players in history.
We were playing $2-$5 Slick-ippe and I had trips snapped on the river on a 2-outer by some jerkstore playing a backdoor low. That seems to happen all the time
Makes me want to stick to Bicester and Spinning Dog of the Nile.
That seems to happen in all of the "ipe" games. Starting hand selection is skewed a bit, because "middle ball" hands are frequently more playable for high, because the relevant up cards stay available longer.
Have you ever thought of the ramifications of not rotating the card selection?
The Indian Casino near my home town has recently increased the cost of buying an unseen card to a sizeable amount in its "Slick-ippe" game. This has stopped a lot of the backdooring on river street by the jerkstore's bestsellers. You might consider doing the same in your game.
That also frees up the board and makes it less likely that you'll see the same 2 cards the next round.
That does seem to help. There is nothing worse than looking at the Jack-Eight offsuit two or three rounds in a row.
We've always played it as 6-card stud (2d, 4u). Each player gets the hole cards, then a bet. Dealer exposes 2 cards and UTG can select either one for free or pay to take an unseen card. Option for each player, then bet. First option on card rotates for each of 4 up cards. Played hi-lo, with or without qualifiers and can be cards-speak or simultaneous declaration.
Is this the game you guys play? Weippe is 1 hole card and Tripe is 3 hole cards.
Great game.
Stack O' Chips, it sounds like you guys are playing the New Orleans version. We play the "Western" version, where you have a twist available, including a deucy twist, after sixth street. Do you ever play that version?
I'm not a big fan of a deucy twist in a game with two hole cards. Especially considering the fact that you had a choice on every card anyway -- a little too much deception. Plus, the card you roll doesn't give away any information, because it's frequently the extraneous 6th card that doesn't play in your hand anyway. Interesting thought, though. Wonder if anybody else out these has tried your Western version.
While slick-ippe and tripe each have their advantages, I have always felt that the true measure of any ippe player is his ability in classic weippe. I prefer to mix the duecy twist in once in awhile, but when played without the duecy twist, you are more than likely to catch some stupid spud who forgets about the duecy twist and incorrectly exposes his hole card. These kinds of players make your EV almost limitless.
Stay off the rail.
Actually, the deucy twist in classic weippe is more acceptable, for reasons stated above, because there is only one hole card.
As for the "stupid spud" forgetting the rules and trying to deucy twist in an "up for an up; down for a down" version, that is part of the reason for overcomplicating games -- to trip up the people who are always talking when the dealer announces the game. Glad I never do that.
Same answer as Lucky's. We have never traditonally played it with a deucy twist. If you want that additional card I'd rather give everybody a 3rd hole card -- a true "7th street."
Slick-ippe can never be played when you play with idiots that worry more about screwing you over than improving their hand. What do you guys do to prevent this problem?
I have been a frequent victim of this ploy. No doubt that is because I try to project a hostile, less-than-honest table image. The only way to beat this strategy is to make it too expensive for these morons to play. If they bet, raise. If re-raised, cap it.
Stay off the rail.
The Store, you sound like a guy who often plays in our weekly game. While most of us play a friendly game to mostly socialize, one particular Jerk is constantly jamming the pot for no particular reason. In fact, we hardly ever play one of our favorite games, Hore's Half-Acre, because this Jerk always caps the betting on second street. In fact, at last night's game he did this very same thing, and was easily our "best seller."
I must thank you folks for your thoughtful discussion of the ippe family of games. I too have had some experience with these games. My experience has been in a dealers choise arena rather than the more common no limit ippe tournament. In the dealers choice arena, I have found the following rules very helpful: 1) Don't listen to the jerkstore 2) Once you recieve your cards look at them and them toss them in the center signifying that you fold and will not be participating- some like to wait for someone to bet prior to throwing in their hand. However, waiting for a bet, even a small bet, increased the possiblity that you will not follow this rule and will waste money calling a bet looking for cards that will never come. Obviously these rules do not apply in a no limit tournament environment. Did anyone video tape the slickippe tournament on ESPN last weekend? What a wonderful display of slickippe technique.
Sound like one on those dealer choice games the begins: I learned this when was working on an oil rig in Lousiana.
Best strategy is to fold quickly and then when the deal comes to you, play regular 5-card stud (if anybody remembers what this is), hope you get a high pair at the start, bet it all the way and collect.
Someone reminded me of a hand I played about 6 months ago, and I would like to get a critique of my play (from what I can remember).
$15-30 stud. By 4th street I have an open-end high straight draw. On 5th street I paired one of my face cards and bet, and got raised by Zack (a good player who sometimes pushes a small edge on the come) who has something like 6, 7, 8(not suited) showing. So, I figure him for a small straight. I call, everyone else folds. On sixth street, I make a broadway straight and bet, and get raised again by Zack.
We raised and re-raised 6 times. As I said, first I put Zack on a smaller straight. But after 4 raises, I re-thought this, and decided that he must have trips. Zack can be a kind in-your-face type of player, and I dearly love to get right back in his face when I believe that I have the advantage. On the fifth raise Zack tells me that he has a full house, and I reply that he can't have a full-house on 6th street with no pair showing - and I then made the 6th raise. He just called.
Now I'm fairly certain that he has trips, but he has to catch to beat me, and I don't want to back off because, well, because it's Zack, so I bet the river. Zack called without looking at his river card. I threw my straight on board as he squeezed out his last card. He made a full house on the river and took the pot.
I had a read on Zack, and knew that I had him beat, but also knew that he could draw out on me. I felt that I had the advantage with the made hand, but the size of the pot due to all the raises made it correct for him to call.
What (if anything) should I have done differently?
All comments welcome.
1) If he were a good player he would not have put in 6 raises on 6th street with what was obviously the worst hand at the time. You either had a pair showing or 4 to a straight so he had to know he was beat if he was a good player.
2) If he were a good player he would not have called in the dark on the river. (In fact there's no hand he could call with even after looking, either raise with a full house or fold the trips.)
You played the hand fine. Just unlucky to have been beat by an idiot who seriously overplayed his hand.
Tough beat, Zack played the hand like a total moron. He is really hurting, and he couldn't even raise the river, what a joke. You played the hand fine. I can't believe Zack would play a hand like that.
Zack maybe not such a moron. Zack had rolled trips. SM&Z in 7CSFA Say that they should be played fast. But if this were a tight game where a raise on third street steals the antes and the bringin/limpers, Zack was correct to slowplay. If Zack had raised on 3rd st, you should have thought about folding. On 5th, he probably figured you for two pair, thus the raise. Again an opportunity to fold, though it would depend on the pot odds. On sixth street, you probably should have called earlier. While Zack would have been incorrect to 6-bet it (if they rules allowed), each of his raises individually was probably correct. (Assumming all his cards are live, his odds of hitting a full house or better are around 2.7:1) You probably should have called after he raised. On the river, he was playing with you. Regardless of his river card, there is too much money in the pot for him to fold. Remember he probably figured you for two pair.
I think the reason that Zack told you he had a boat was to see what you had, you let him know that you didn't have one by your answer. If you had it to do all over again and played dumb, (obviously he mustn't think too much of you to say that with no pair), that his boat better be bigger than yours, do you think that would have changed things ?
My point is that you bit and he got the information that he wanted, I still think you did the right thing in terms of reraising but "well it's Zack" tells me he's in your head so bare that in mind amd give him free reads.
I think that you are right about Zack being in my head. Tough to admit, although apparent to me now - thanks.
I don't know how Zack might have reacted if I hadn't made my comment. With or without the comment, I think he realized that I had him beat on 6th street, so he didn't re-raise.
I still don't understand his blind call on the river - i mean it doesn't make logical sense to me. If he had an out to beat me, then why didn't he look first? Maybe he had already given up on the hand.
Bruce K,
I think Bruce knew you had a straight and he also knew you would raise till the cows come home on 6th because of his cards showing. You probably beat him in a similar way in the past and he was returning the favor. Or he just doesn't like you because your a better player. This might just be all BS but I think he knew what he was doing and all his cards were live so he took a shot. More info would be helpful as to how big your pair was compared to his trips and did he have them rolled up etc. Just remember this hand still owns you because your still thinking about it and maybe that's what Zack wanted to be able to use this against you, but if you think about it before you enter the next session with him you can use it against him.
Paul
well stated...more here than just this hand isolated...reminds me some of discussion about johnny Chan being a fish on a hand where he made a great read and jammed when his opponent had math edge...somehow these plays can unnerve certain players (What's the use of playing correctly) and/or set up revenge as a motive rather than playing game optimally,,jmho..but i would jam my last dollar with the straight and no pair showing..of course bankroll considerations might vary some player's decisions here too
My pair on 5th street was Queens, I believe, but there was another queen out. Zack was not rolled up, but made his set on 5th street. His play may have been motivated somewhat by revenge, because I have nailed him a few times before, but I think that he probably put me on two pair instead of the straight, and that's why he raised so many times. The last raise I put in convinced him I had the straight. I think he was a broken man at that point, and that is why he just called in the dark on the end - because he realized that he had read my hand wrong. It seems to me his play of just calling on the end was the worst decision he made, because I would have paid off another raise.
Thanks for all your comments, they have been very helpful to me in thinking about this hand.
Bruce K.
It's a no brainer. Don't even think about it...reraise until you are out of chips. There is no way he is a favorite in this hand unless maybe (haven't done the math) he has a 4 flush with his trips and ALL his cards are live. Seeing how his trips were hidden this means he DID not have 4 cards to a flush on his board. Raise away. It happened to me once when I was playing low limits 2 years ago...a guy put in 8 raises in 6-12 with trips against my straight. Got him all in and won it.
You should not have told him he couldn't have a full house and raised sixt street until you were all in.
Vince
The same thing happened to me at 10-20 pp. I show an Ace (K-Q no suited in the hole), he limp in 3rd, I raise he reraise. In 4th I catch a Jack and blank for him. He bet, I call. In 5th I cacth a ten for a broadway, he catches another blank. From this point until the river is a battle of raises (I have the absolute nuts and he continues raising me with an ACe showing and some blanks no suited no connected). Obvious on the river I only call his bet: He had full of ACes with a running pair, he started rolled up. I think, according with an above answer, that he surely was rolled and, seen the rarity of this hand, he didn't want to believe he could losing with that hand, even he well figured you have you beaten (he knew very very well you had the nuts along the way). Marco
Marco,
Sounds like you played the hand correctly except for the raise on third street. 10-20 stud is not a limit where you need to be real aggressive on third street. When you made the broadway, if you where the one that kept raising, then you played the hand, regardless of how rare, correctly. You cannot ask for more than getting all your money in with the best of it. (I assume you only had a buy in or so in front of you. If it was your entire life's savings well now that's a different matter.)
Vince
Vince Lepore wrote: "You should not have told him he couldn't have a full house and raised sixt street until you were all in."
I don't understand. Can you elaborate on this thought Vince?
Bruce K.
"You cannot ask for more than getting all your money in with the best of it. (I assume you only had a buy in or so in front of you. If it was your entire life's savings well now that's a different matter.)"
I copied this from a reply I made to Marco, who described the same situation as yours. You were a big favorite on 6th street to win the hand. He had at best 10 outs (Assuming all his cards were live). Assume there were were 30 unseen cards (probably more) then you were at least a 2 - 1 favorite to win the hand. Get that money in there. He's giving you even money when you are 2 - 1. Now if it is your life savings don't bet it all no matter how tempting. But bet a good portion of it.
vince
I am not as familiar with this game. Is it anything like Slick's House? This Bo guy sounds like someone who stays with a 2-7 off-suit and then whines about getting sniped by a 64.
I thought 2-7 offsuit was the best starting hand in Slick-ippe.
The Setting: Regular Wednesday night PL Omaha Tournament at the Silver Star, Philadelphia, MS. $10 buy in, $20 rebuys, $40 add on. A little more than 40 players start the tournament. Down to final table with nine players. Top seven players finish in the money.
Our hero is in the big blind with T3,500 remaining after posting T2,000 blind. UTG players makes it T5000. I respect UTG as an excellent player who continually finishes high in these tournaments and has several years of experience as a poker player. I would rate him as one of the top players who are considered regulars at the Silver Star. Tight/aggressive would be my characterization of him although he is not above using position, image and all other weapons available to him to run a stone cold bluff. In other words, he is a respected, formidable opponent.
He raises and makes it T5000 and has about T2500 remaining in chips. My T5500 stack before the big blind had me 7th in stack size at the table. UTG is probably 6th in chips. Only one player has a huge chip lead on the rest of the table. Remember, nine players and only 7 get paid.
Following UTG's raise everyone including the small blind fold to me. My cards are Ad-2d-4h-5h. UTG could have a good hand or he could be trying to pick up the blinds.
I'm faced with calling his raise or folding and possibly being down to 1500 after the small blind passes me. I might could hang on and two people would be eliminated and make a small profit on my $50 investment in the game.
QUESTION 1: What do you think I should have done? Call, go all in with my extra T500 or fold.
I'm thinking why can't I be looking at a monster hand, too. Well, at least, I have a suited ace. Also, four cards to a wheel straight. Dang, these sure are little cards, though. I remembered earlier that I had knocked out a player when I had 3-4-5-6 on the big blind when I called his all in raise which only cost me an extra thousand dollars. I had made two pair to beat his pair of queens that he held in his hand.
QUESTION 2: What other items should I have been considering concerning my action against UTG's raise?
I called and raised all in the extra T500. We laid our cards out. He held K-Q-Q-10. ARRGH!
Despite this I sucked out. I made two pair 2's and 4's to his Q-Q. I doubled through, picked up a few hands later and finished third. UTG was now crippled and held on to finish 7th. A interesting side note: UTG's significant other wound up splitting 1st and 2nd money. She knocked me out, in fact. The person who had come to the final table with a huge chip lead despite being very inexperienced at Omaha, tournaments and pot limit games blew his chips against the more experienced players eventually and finished 5th.
QUESTION 3: What do you think about UTG's play? Was the raise in early position a good move? Should he have just called?
QUESTION 4: Would you have gambled finishing in the money away with my raise all in with nothing but wheel cards in a high only game. There were nut flush and straight possibilities. I wasn't sure I would receive a hand with these possibilities again and be blinded out of the tournament.
All thoughts and observations are welcome.
mredge
anyone play in these??? I want to play the stud tourney on sunday. how are they?? how many players??? any tips??
thanks
billy b
Billy B,
$20.00 entry fee; one $10.00 rebuy. Usually draw around 100 players. I rarely play in these because I'm a lousy stud player. Tips: I'm a lousy stud player and have made the final table in 3 of 7 entered. Take from that what you will. Good Luck.
BTW, starting time is 10:00 am.
went today, 126 players. saw some really bad play I didnt do too well made it to the 300-600 lvl got beat by an old guy that played almost everyhand. Hopefully i will get better cards next time. only had about 2 playable hands in 2 hours and one of them was the one I busted out with K's + Q's
peace
billy b
These tourneys are excellent. The fields are soft, the softest I've ever encountered at any level anywhere. You get plenty of chips, and the levels increase slowly enough that you get plenty of play, i.e., it's not a total crapshoot, but a tourney that allows more skill than most at this cost level.
$15 + $5 gets you T1000, and $10 rebuy gets you T1000 more. Always take the rebuy, because it's cheaper than the original buy-in. Don't bother waiting, just take it as soon as you can. There will be plenty of time before you're all-in, if ever, and you very likely won't bust before the rebuy period ends.
Have fun.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hi
I am playing 7 card stud poker, circa 5$-20$ (ante 2$) in Europe.
It is a very loose game, with some bad players and few good players. The casino take 6$ at the antes in every pot (2$ is going to a special players pot. But you can only win 30% of that special pot, if you get straight flush), plus they expekt to be tipped off about 3% of every winning pot.
Is that worth playing ?
Regards,
Michael Anderson
I'd have to know a little more about this game. But I tend to doubt that it is worthwhile. $6 is a VERY, VERY steep rake for any game. Frankly, I don't understand how they could take this out of the antes. How large are the antes? $1 a player?
To really determine whether the game can be beaten I'd need to know the average pot size. If the average size is $60 and usually heads up then the answer is no...at least not for me. I am not 20% better than the pool of people I am ever likely to play. I don't think I could beat the 20% vig on my winnings (10% of the pot with half of the pot being my money would be 20% vig on my winnings). But if the average pot size is $240 and multi-way then I think I could.
Good luck.
Sounds like casino Marienlyst in Helsingør Denmark. Is It ? I used to play there and did pretty good. I could win one big bet every hour, but I dont think I can keep that up. Because the conditions are so bad I no longer play. I agree most players are very week, and they need to be for us to have any chance. The rake is steep, but even worse are the tips for the dealers. They are so greedy and in the long run this game must be hard to beat. If you do play make sure most players are very bad. And never play shorthanded. Because they drop $6 no matter how small the pot is, no one can win shorthanded.
Good luck
Anders
Very good guess Anders.
It is Casino Marienlyst in Denmark. The ante is 2$ a player and it is normal multi-way handed (5-7 players). I don`t really know the average pot, because I have only played there for a couple of hours. But it seems to me, that it is not worth playning, I guess
Forget that game! Take an airplane and go to Vienna at Concord or POkerworld clubs. Good atmosphere, good (and weak) players, good service, good food, good dealers. 7 stud is the most famous game there (but I think you know it) Marco
5-10 stud at the Trop in AC. Weak game, even for the Trop. ON the river I miss a flush but have a pair of sixes, hidden, with a K and A on board. There are two other player both weak players. One has a possible straight on board and one appears to have nothing. I am first to bet on the river.
I thought about bluffing, as the first opponenet may have missed his straight and would fold if he missed. The other player had nothing, and I was not sure where to put him. Both called bets on fifth and sixth after I bet, so I wasnt sure what he had. I put him on two small pair, and he was the type who would fold, since my board was fairly strong.
I thought that I could bluff any one of them singly, but I probably couldnt bluff both. So,I checked,and it checked all the way around. First player had nothing and the second had a pair of sevens,and won the pot.
The question is whether it is worthwhile to bluff in this situation. The pot was approximately $80. I am fairly sure that the second player would have folded with only a pair. Was it worthwhile to try? Any comments appreciated.
Pat
You probably could have bluffed me if I had an unimproved low pair, but you ain't gonna bluff the Trop weekend visitors who are there for the action. You might bluff 1 of them, but the other will, "have to keep you honest". Forget the check raise since they never "get it" in the 5/10 game
Interesting and very frequent situation in weak-loose games. First, you had to notice if those players loved to play many come hands (as often happens) or they played small pairs even they look at scare boards with higher cards (especially Aces). I think that table was a mixture of these things. What was your previous play? Did you always bet with Aces up or Kings up? And when you had these hands, they called you with weaker hands? Even a super-loose player remember this river betting (better when they lose that pot). If I were in your place no doubt I surely fired a bet (after a brief theatral glance at their boards so to give an idea that I'm almost sure I'm not crashing against possible flushes or straights or paired doorcards, etc). If I'm called and lose the pot: good advertising! Weak players love to chase me in future rounds (you know very well). If I win, all the better. In my games, I win in the most part only when I made these voluntary errors. When I play in the right tight-aggressive play after some minute I don't get anything from the pot. I appreciate very much your reply, Patrick especially about stud games in Vegas THanks, Marco
$10 to win $80 isn't too bad for this kind of bluff.
If the straight hit, you lose. But if he missed (about 3 out of 4), his fold may help convince the next player to fold. I guess the first fold sometimes lends a little credibility to your bet. Especially if the first player is known as a good player. Against weak opponents, the first player to the left is the most important one to convince. I've seen this work a number of times at low limits.
DJ
While playing stud over the wekend in a 5-10 game, I began to wonder whether it is worthwhile to play a certain type of starting hand aggressively. Namely, starting hands such as 8A/8 or 9K/9 and these types of hands that will make a high two pair. The game I usually play is 5-10 at AC, which is a weak game.
The problem is that these hands do not want multiple callers. So I frequently reraise on third, fourth and/or fifth, depending upon what I think is necessary to knock people out. Typically, I will raise on third, then raise on fourth or checkraise depending upon the players in the pot, my position, the boards, whether the A or K is my door, and whether I think I can knock them out with a checkraise. For example, I played a hand this weekend where I checkraised on fourth after a raise on third with 6A/6K and my opponent folded after stating that he thought I had trip sixes.
I realized that there are two potential problems with this strategy. Firstly, my reraise, especially on fifth requires that I put in $20 or even $30(rarely) to knock out players. Even when this is successful, in the typical 5-10 game the pot is not that large, and it may not be worthwhile to reraise to $20 if the pot is small.
Secondly, the raise on third is, in essence, a semi-bluff. Most times you do not get the pot heads up, although usually there are only 2-3 callers. Even this situation is not the greatest, as it requires the reraise or raise on fifth, thereby costing me even more money when these hands come up.
While I have no doubt that this is the correct way to generally play these type of hands at a higher limit, I am not sure that these hands are increasing my win when i play them in the manner described in a game where there are usually smallpots. I am not concerned with the situation when there is a good sized pot in 5-10, as my strategy, I think,is close to correct.
So, the question is whether it is worthwhile to play these hands, and in what situations,and when they are played,how fast should they be played in a game where there are generally small pots.
Any comments are appreciated.
Pat
Pat,
I'm not sure what you mean when you say the pot is not that large. If you are speaking in dollar terms, because the game is 5-10, then absolute size is not important. The bets you will need to make to knock people out are proportionately small. If you are saying the pots are small because there are initially only a few limpers or callers, then that is precisely what you want. A hand like you describe plays well heads up which will likely result in a smaller pot.
I agree 8A/8 and 9K/9 are pretty decent hands that should be played agressively. I find that it is much easier to limit the field if the kicker is the door card. That also has the advantage of hidden power when you hit trips. Sometimes I can tell that raising 6A/6 on third will not have much of an effect so I won't even try it. I like to wait until 4th for a possible high card and then play fast.
Another consideration is when someone else has a probable pair higher than your pair and lower than your kicker. Many times it is better to let him do the raising. If he is directly to your left you can then reraise and really put pressure on others to drop.
I have asked myself these same questions. Since I play 5-10 at the Trop often, I feel compelled to comment, even though I have no answers.
In your second paragraph, you state, and I agree, that these hands (8A/8, 88/A) cannot stand many callers. The problem then, as you know, is that the 5-10 at the Trop typically features a plethora of callers coming in with who knows what. This being the case, you have an up hill battle with these hands. If I'm close to the bring-in and "know" I'm going to get callers, even if I complete the bet (3rd Street), I'm more inclined to limp, and hope someone late raises so I can re-raise. My hand has to be live, of course, or it's better to toss it, I'm sure. If the game is aggressive, as well as loose, I can't see playing this hand in early position at all. If I'm in late position, and miraculously no one, or only one player has come in, then I can come in for a raise, or re-raise. I can't see raising in late position if several player have come in. They won't get out (typically). I'd rather limp, and go for a raise or check-raise on 4th Street.
Your door card is important. I normally like pocket pairs because of the potential to hit a concealed hand, but the drawback with 88/A, for example, is you probably will be first to act throughout the hand. If you had raised on 3rd Street, and several players called, betting out on 4th Street is pretty impotent. You are virtually compelled to opt for a check-raise. That's okay, if someone in late position will oblige you with a bet, and your raise will knock out the rest of the field. However, this not such a bowl of cherries, in my opinion. It's possible/probable that the bettor has something, and chances are it's better than a pair of eights. I don't like playing hands when I'm behind, am first to act, and am doubtful that my opponent will muck his hand.
On the other hand, with A8/8 you probably won't be high, but hitting your best card (8) may mean you don't get the hand paid off. If your opponents couldn't care less about someone pairing his door card, which is often the case in these games, I'd rather have A8/8.
This post is longer than I wanted it to be, so let me wrap it up. These are semibluff hands, and in loose games typical of the 5-10 at the Trop, semibluffs don't have the value they have in games where players might actually fold. I don't think these hands are automatically playable.
Tom D
you said, "So I frequently reraise on third, fourth and/or fifth, depending upon what I think is necessary to knock people out."
Does that not depend on (1) knowing the players (2) your position (3) your up cards and what you are representing and (4) your table image? If you think the reraise will get you heads up, then it is fine. My experience is that the players who call the reraise at this limit usually have what they represent, and the only people you get out are those who would contribute to the pot and who you could beat. Calling a reraise tells you either (1) he does not believe you or (2) he has you beat. Since you cannot tell what he has at this early stage, you may be making a mistake at this limit, although 3rd is the cheapest street to make a mistake on.
Additionally, I find that check raises do not work real well in the 5-10 game at Trop. I suspect we have played in the same games before.
You get right to the heart of this problem. While you are correct that I think about the considerations mentioned, the greater problem is that someone who calls the reraise in this limit is usually has a stronger hand than someone at a higher limit. If I knew for a fact that my heads up opponent had, for example, a pair of kings (as opposed to any number of hands that a tougher player or a higher limit player might have such as a three flush or a small pair with a flush kicker) then my play is likely incorrect.
As you aptly state, and as I realize since we do play in the same type of game in AC, the caller of my reraise usually has a high pair and not the other possible hands. This may make my hand unprofitable, and that is the question I have; does it?
Perhaps S/M/Z can help with this problem?
Thanks for the input, Pat
This may be an oversimpification but if all the cards were turned up and you saw that your opponent had a higher pair than you, what would be the answer to your question ?
6/12 stud, I have 4A/4 and call the unraised $1 bring in, aces and 4’s live. Fourth street I get an ace, and bet the $3 max as I’m high, four callers.
Fifth street, 4A/4A8, I’m still high and bet my Aces up, 1 call, raised by XX/K(X)J, 2 clubs, call, I call and last person on my left calls.
Sixth street, 4A/4A88, 3-pair, A/4/8’s all live. The raiser picked up another club, no help to the 2 others. I was going to check but didn’t want it to be checked around, so I bet and got called and raise by the apparent flush. Person to my right thought long and folded. I was the only caller and when it got heads up the raiser asked if I wanted to check it down blind before the river. I agreed as I thought I was behind to a flush.
Got my 8 on the river for a boat and I quickly rolled them over as she showed her flush made on sixth street.
Bad play on my part (esp. betting my 3-pair, thinking I would be raised, but not wanting to reraised myself once heads up)?
1. was there a $6 max on fourth? your post says $3. MAybe I am unfamiliar with this type of game,butI assume that the bet on fourth street was $6.
2. With that in mind, the pot on fifth street was approximately $152. You should have checked and called on sixth, as it was clear that she had a flush. By betting, you must think that you will get raised thereby cutting your odds in half, and you risk the reraise knocking people out which you do not want. If you check-call on sixth your call is a good one due to the six outs.
You don't say how many callers there were on third, so I dont know how many cards you saw, but with all six cards live you had good pot odds. Depending on the number of cards, i.e if there were 5-8 callers on third, your bet might even be OK on sixth if you anticipated a raise. If there were six callers on third, then by my calculations you saw six other cards on third and fourth, and five on fifth and sixth,leaving you with 6 cards out of 30 or 4-1 against. In this situation a bet is OK, but not the best play unless you thought the flush was not made. In any event you would call either way. I presume you would not have bet without the two extra outs, since that would be a bad play.
You didnt get that lucky, as in this situation you had good odds. But you may have misplayed on third, or maybe not.
Pat
3. I think you played incorrectly on third street as you should probably have raised (but see my prior post about this type of hand!). On fourth street your bet is OK, but you should have considered checkraising, which you may have done but your post does not say.
Pat,
Six players called the $1 bring in, I was 3rd to call and didn’t want to raise to $3 with a pair of 4’s. I was high on 4th street with my Ace/4 and I think if I tried a check raise it would have been checked around and I wanted some folds with my Aces up. I’m limited to a $3 bet on 4th, unless there is a pair showing.
Even with the raise I wasn’t 100% sure of the flush, maybe kings or jacks up, with a draw to the flush.
Thanks for your input.
I agree with Patrick. Check and call. I would not have raised on 3rd street unless I was trying to get money in the pot. You will not scare anyone out of that game on 3rd street.
Does anybody know of any good books or sources of information for manila poker.
I have never seen any discussion about it.
Can anybody tell me anything usefull about the two and three card versions of the game.
??
I suggest you post the message at www.pokernetwork.com, the Australiasian poker site.
I know Bob Bell (he also reads the site) here in New Zealand wrote a load of strategy articles that were printed in "cards" magazine, if there are any of these articles on the net the guys at pokernetwork.com should point you in the right direction.
Personally I'd stay away from it, that 4x bet on the river card leads to too many suckouts.. I think good players have a better edge at the standard games..
d.
The best sex in the orient.
I appreciate very much your comments about this hand. Game: $10-20 about, ante $2, bring-in $5. 8 players, in the most part weak opponents. I have (9-3)3 off i'm the bring-in I open, 2 callers, a guy with a 9s showing raises. All fold, I call and 2 other players behind me call (totally 4 players). 4th card: a 3 for me, 2 blanks for 2 callers, a Jack of spades (same suit of his doorcard) for the raiser. I bet the maximum ($20), 1 player call (i don't remember exactly his hand, i think a King off in the board), the raiser with 9 showing raised me, I reraised, he capped me. 5th card: blank for me, 2 offsuit for him. In this point I love to bet. Why? First I want to know where I'm, second I don't absolutely want to give him a freecard (for his eventually flush of spades). I bet, he raised, I reraised, he calls. 6th card: a blank for me, an ace offsuit for him. River: No help for me, I check, he checks. Result: I lost vs a trips of Aces. Questions: 1- I did a mistake raising in 4th card with my trips of 3s? 2- I did a mistake to set up a battle in 4th, 5th and 6th card? 3- I did a mistake figuring he was wuith 4 flush, trying to get a freecard? 4- It was a mistake to think he probably had no trips of 9s as I had one 9 in my hole? Consider also in that table I'm known such a very aggressive player. My opponent who won the hand is mediocre in 7-stud. Comments appreciated. Marco
It might be easier to read if you spaced things out more.
You played the hand well. It was obvious he had aces, possibly kings. You owned him, I would just check and call on sixth and the river. I love you maximum bet on fourth street, it got you tons of extra bets with the best of it.
with no overcards and no scare card, I would have folded on 3rd street. I figure him for a big pair, not betting on the come. if you get stuck with 2 small pair, what are you gonna do? if you had an A, K Q showing and a pocket pair, you might play with a low pocket pair. at least tou have a 12% draw on 4th street that is legit. As i say again, I would have folded the crappy 3's
I think you played well after third. However, the call on third seems out of line. You have a low pair and a partially dead, somewhat low kicker.
If he has a large pair in the hole then you are a big underdog without any overcards.
If he has split 9s then your kicker is even more dead and your pair is lower than his. Also making you an underdog.
Once you hit your 3s you played well. I can understand him raising you on 4th, but not on 5th. He was lucky to catch that ace after that. Also, he probably should have bet the river. I assume you would have called.
Although I disagree with your call on third I think he played much worse. When you came out swinging on 4th you were at least advertising trip 3s. However, he never played as if he thought you had trips.
First thing: Thanks of your answers. I totally agree with Maurice, I played bad in 3rd, really bad. But I'm happy to heard I didn't do a mistake jammin the pot in 4th. By the way, I'm preparing a post about 4th card play. I have to explain things in a better graphic fashion, sorry for this. Marco
I would have folded for the raise on third. Also I think he played the hand much more agressively than he would have if he had a four-flush, so I think it was a mistake to put him on that hand. This is especialy true after he raised you when you paired your door.I would not have reraised on fifth either.
You see the problem with playing this hand for a raise--you sometimes catch the perfect card and still lose.
Pat
Marco,
You said in your post that the other players were mostly weak, and the player who finally won the pot was mediocre. In this situation, I would have to put the raiser on Aces or Kings in the pocket. If he were a strong aggressive player, I might put him on a pair of 9's with an Ace or king kicker.
In either case you are running uphill to catch him. You have a 9 in the hole so one or maybe two of you kicker are already out. You do not have a kicker higher than his doorcard, so even if you do make two pair with the 9 you have, you cannot be happy with the hand.
Your 3's were live, so I might have called the raise if the 3's were both in the pocket, and I had an Ace or King on top. Then if you call, he at least has to wonder if you have another king in the pocket, and are just slowplaying. If you then catch the third 3 you can raise and he would put you on Kings up at most.
Since you did choose to play the hand, and made a set on 4th street, you did the right thing in raising til it was capped. He never suspected you had trips, and just got lucky on sixth street. I think that you played it fine once you were in the hand, but again, I think it was a mistake to come in with that hand for a raise.
I misread the post. I thought everyone limped. You should have folded to the raise. Your hand has little equity. Multi-way you could try to pick off a trip if the doorcard would get paid the whole way.
We had such a good discussion about the "ippe" games that I thought we should talk about bicester, which is an old Mike Caro creation.
Generally played hi-lo with a qualifier, each player is dealt 5 cards and can draw up to 3. Flop will eventually be 4 up cards, turned one-at-a-time. Each player must prearrange his hole cards and roll an up card for each of the first three flop cards. Player must use exactly three cards with two board cards or all five in hand and no board cards.
When the game is 8-handed, a variation is to deal each player six cards, with no draw.
Beats the heck out of king push, although the latter does have the merit of eliminating certain undesirables right away.
Any experience with this game?
Full table, 15-30. I'm low with 3 up, A, 6 in the hole and bring in for $5. Four others limp in. 4th street Ronnie catches another nine to pair his door card and bets $30. Ronnie is losing a little, and his emotions have begun to run away so that he is on tilt a little. He is bluffing and semi-bluffing frequently - especially if he starts with a pair. So, based on his current state of mind, I don't believe that he started with a pair of 9's, and tripped up on 4th street. I catch an Ace on 4th to give me a pair of Aces.
So, believing I have a read on him, I raise to $60. He stares at me, and it's hard to explain, but I could see it in his face that he DIDN'T have it, and Ronnie is not an actor. He called.
5th street he catches a five and checks, and I go against my read and check along with him. My thinking was that if he did have trips he may have just called on 4th so that he could check-raise me on 5th. If he did have trips though, he would not check again on 6th for fear of missing another bet, so I reasoned that if he checked again on 6th then I could be sure he did not have trips.
Ronnie catches a jack on 6th street, and I catch a six to give me two pair. I bet and Ronnie calls, then calls again on the river and my two pair are good.
My raise on 4th street was intended to take command of the pot and find out where he was. Should I have went ahead and bet into him on 5th street? If I did and he raised, I would have to call, and then it seems that I couldn't be sure where he was at.
I have used this play against four different opponents within the last 4 or 5 months, and it seems to work really well. It also seems to leave my opponent and others at the table talking to themselves as well - because no one expects you to raise the guy who has just paired his door card and bet the maximum. So I gain a psycological advantage against the other players from it also.
What are the flaws with this play, and how might I get myself into trouble with it?
I am trying to improve my game, and so I am critiqueing plays that I use frequently. All comments are welcome.
How likely is Ronnie to raise on third street with a pair of nines? If he's on tilt even a little, surely this would be a good enough hand to pump on third.
Is Ronnie the type of player that will bet the minimum on fourth holding trips?
Does he know you well enough as a player to raise to get a free card on fifth, in the case that you don't have aces? Your read on him may be good, but what about his read on you?
You seem to know this player well enough to discern his regular action on these two streets, tilt or no tilt. Personally, I'd bet into him on fifth, and call his bets on sixth and seventh assuming he popped it back on fifth. His action is a little weak for the hand you fear if he's acting the way you say he is.
Ronnie would not normally raise on 3rd with a pair of nines unless he is losing and is trying to get his money back. Ronnie is definitely not the type to bet minimum with trips - he plays a very straigtforward game. He never raises to get a free card. Very predictable.
As far as his read on me - I think he put me on Aces or two small pair.
If he's that straightforward, then there's only one hand you could hold that would beat his three nines on fourth, if he had them. Most players are going to re-pop on fourth with trips here, and it sounds like Ronnie is one of them.
I'd still bet fifth for value, although there is the possibility of Ronnie catching two pair at this point. He may be aggressive enough in this situation to check-raise in that case, but it seems to unlikely that someone would play three nines in this manner after just calling your raise on fourth.
There were three ways to play this hand. 1) Raise as you did and play as you did. 2) Fold on third street. 3) Call him down or bet if he checked.
I prefer option 3 because of the reasons you gave. He is on tilt and will probably bet throught the river with open nines and a worse hand than yours. I also would not raise when I made Aces up.
Vince
Hi Bruce, I don't like your check on fifth street. Two main reasons...If your read is correct and Ronnie does not have 3 9's then you have given him a free card when you are ahead. If your read is correct, then if Ronnie does check raise then you can safely throw your hand away. You don't gain any information by checking. It causes other problems as well.
If Ronnie now bets on 6th street because you showed weakness, what do you do now? If your read is correct, you should throw your hand away, but I would find it almost impossible to throw my hand away at this point. (This includes those times you make 2 pair as you did or just have a single pair of aces). Because his bet may have been made because you showed weakness as opposed to him showing strength.
If you know on 5th street that you are going to fold to a bet on 6th street if your opponent leads, without gaining any additional info about your opponents hand, then I think you should bet 5th street and get your information immediately.
The only caveat I have and it doesn't sound as if Ronnie is capable of this, is if Ronnie would check raise on 5th street with 2 pair representing trips. If that is the case, then I think you can make a case for yourself to check and hope he checks again on 6th street.
John Gaspar
Alright enough scientific analysis. Your read is he doesn't have 3 nines so Raise and Bet Bet Bet aces beat nines shoot it up.
Thanks to everyone for their responses. This has been very helpful to me.
I agree that I should have stuck with my read and bet on 5th street. Then if I got raised by Ronnie I could be fairly certain he had the trips and just throw my hand away. At least this way I would not have missed any bets, and I would have an opportunity early in the hand to get a response from Ronnie as to if he was tripped. Either way, I find out early in the hand and either push it or drop it.
Vince suggested a call-to-the end, with no raise as a good approach to playing the hand. I don't like that option because I don't know for sure where I'm at in the hand. I would rather fold the Aces and go on to the next hand.
As I said in my original post, I felt I had a good read on Ronnie in this situation, and that is why I played the hand the way I did. If it had been a different player, or if Ronnie's state of mind were different, then I probably would have folded the hand, rather than risking more bets against possible trips.
I have some experience with Omaha/8 but I don't know any formal starting hand theory. I'll play a bare A2xx except from very early positon. And I won't play A3xx offsuit from any positon. But I do play A2s and A3s from any positon. I don't cold call raises with the A3s and am weary about cold calling with A2s depending on my kickers but I usually play. As far as hands that don't have an ace I try to play 4 high cards like Q10J9 or KK10J something of that sort? And from the later positions I might play a hand like 23QJ double suited. Does this sound about right? My friend was saying that I play too many of the A3 suited hands. Do you agree.
Also how do you feel about playing big high hands up front? I was just playing the other day and had AAKK single suited and I raised it up front. Go 2 callers. The flop came J46 rainbow. I bet. Good decision? Anyway it was raised and I called. Was that a mistake? The ace came on the turn and I just check called the turn and the river. The raiser had QQJ4 for 2 pair and the other player had a low.
Comments Apreciated
Anything less than that, or some other decent book, will be very incomplete information, and will lead to errors that are much more costly than the price of the book.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I don't much like O8 but play the tournaments - I like to look at it as a nut nut game so If I don't have the nuts on one end or have a strong draw to the ultimate nuts I really don't like the hand.
Otherday I player 8899 2 suited flop was 8K9 what do you do - I lost it with 2 sets.
The game sucks - pure luck.
Tough beat with those two sets NOT. But anyway as long as we are on the story of beats I'll share a new one with everybody. 8-16 O/8 myself and 2 other players see the flop for 3 bets I have middle position with A2310 double suited. The flop comes
2410 with 3 of my suit. Giving me the Nut flush Middle 2 pair and a draw to the nut low or steel wheel.
Not bad eh?
The turn is a 4 bet get one caller. The river is an Ace I bet he calls.
He shows his QQ104 to scoup the pot. I love this game.
This game involves luck no more than any other poker game, but I can imagine that it doesn't suit your style. Rather than trying to flop the best hand, you much more often play to flop the best draw, and that is where much of the money is made.
It is a drawing game, but that doesn't mean that more luck is involved, just that the luck more often expresses itself on the river than in HE or stud.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree with Greg. Its not just pure luck. Omaha is a game of drawing hands, where stud is a game of chasing hands and holdem is a game of bullshiting hands.
Played correctly I find that O8 is similiar to watching paint dry, very boring to say the least.
That being said I suffer through some very profitable days.
I agree that Ray's book will be very helpful to most players but it's really a simple game, you play the nuts and hope to scoop. I played about four hands in what was a 75 hand tourney and won easily last weekend, again I was bored to tears but it was a great evening.
Ship It - I don't know about the stud part of it, but you have the Omaha and the hold 'em correct, IMHO.
You are pretty close to my philosophy regarding opening hands. Kind of depends who you're playing against and the circumstances. I'm not playing to lose money, but neither is my primary goal to win money. If you go around folding A3XX suited, the game simply isn't much fun. Sometimes it's wise in tournaments, but playing that way is a bit too tight for most ring games, IMHO.
Overall, you may not win with A3XX suited, but even if you don't win, I doubt that you lose much either, and when you hit a flop with a 2 and another low card or two, or you hit a flop with two or three cards in your suit and no pair, you're definitely going for the nuts.
Buzz
Nice hand---A23x flop A23 I have had this hand more than once. I love this game. Coyote
kanscoyote, you really should stop playing that hand, kinda like getting beat with pocket aces....LOL
Rounder - no offense, bud, but read Zee's book. That hand has trash written all over it. What do you hope to make? Middle set?
I think you must be playing in some incredibly tight O8 games. The games I play in, I'll always play A3s and A3-decent-decent from just about anywhere. The reason is these loose fish types will ALWAYS(atleast 90% of the time) bet the nut low DRAW so that if there are two low out and not much action, I can be sure that my second nut low is good and jam the pot when the low hits.
I've found that to be one of hte most profitable plays I've learned in last ocuple of months of playing O8. Loose/weak O8 players bet when they are on nut low draws and you can value bet 2nd nut lows, b/c they'll check and call w/ 3rd nut and 4th nut low-some kinda high hands.
8899 is garbage. Were you in the BB?
I played against an 89 once as well with AA36 (suited). Raised preflop by me with 7 players (many cold calling).
Flop 889 Bet, I raise thinking there is not an 8 or pocket 9 (cause they're trash) and figuring I can knock out any A2 to back into low. This seems a mistake in hindsight - with 7 players I should have assumed there is an 8 and my aces are dead.
One caller and then I'm re-raised (guess I misjudged) I call and hope for low card of my flush suit. Big danger now that I am against A289. Planning to fold to bet on the turn if I have no nut low draw. Other player calls as well
Turn is an A. Player 1 bets, I raise, Player2 calls and player 1 re-raises and then I raise. Player 2 cold calls.
Only thing I can lose to is pocket 8's but player 2 looks so disgusted with player 1 that they must both have an eight.
Betting is the same for the river card and even though the low did come, I scoop against 89, and 8A.
So I re-iterate 8's and 9's are the worst sort of garbage.
4/8 omaha hi/lo just sat down
limped in early position in a passive game with As 3h 4s 8h
Four people took the flop
Ad 4d 4h
I bet, all call turn is a 6s
Ad 4d 4h 6s
I bet, call, then someone raises, cold caller, and then what is the best play?
Call, Raise? Should I raise for value, even if I might be beat? I also don't want to eliminate the one possible weak low draw behind me.
river-Ks
I check, new bettor, a raise, a cold call
how do you proceed?
Even though I wouldn't presume to qualify to answer this question re the subject, I will put in my 2 chips worth.
Weak full houses are a difficult hand to play in Omaha/8. They win money, but they get beat a lot in expensive pots. You lost some value on the turn when the low was made. I'm not sure betting out on the turn is correct.
Your big worry here is someone slow playing A's. You might be beat by a hand with 66 or KK and other value to play (in a weak game by a naked KK), but by the river you are looking at a good sized pot. With 4 players in the pot, the lows are not so much afraid of being quartered, and you could well have 2 lows pushing the pot on the river. I think you have a crying call on the river. Pray that it doesn't get capped.
After the flop, the hand is not the nuts, but is very playable.
"I bet, all call turn is a 6s
Ad 4d 4h 6s
I bet, call, then someone raises, cold caller, and then what is the best play?
Call, Raise? "
I vote for re-raise here. More likely you are against lows than a higher boat. Re-raise and see what happens. Your re-raise here is for value.
"Should I raise for value, even if I might be beat?"
Yes. Re-raise for value. The odds are in your favor.
"I also don't want to eliminate the one possible weak low draw behind me."
Low is already on the board (A-4-6). No one should be "drawing" for low anymore. Someone (maybe more than one) likely has 23XX. That is more likely than your being beaten by a higher boat. You want to make it as expensive as possible for someone with a high pair. Forget about worrying about knocking out a low draw; you need to knock out any high draws.
"river-Ks"
Ugly.
"I check, new bettor, a raise, a cold call how do you proceed?"
Doesn't look good. I think you have to hang in there. You may have a winner. Even if you don't, if you fold here your opponents will make the game even moe difficult for you.
"Weak full houses are a difficult hand to play in Omaha/8. They win money, but they get beat a lot in expensive pots."
I agree with Fred. Just one small point. Yours is not exactly a "weak" full house, since you have fours over aces. One of your opponents is more likely to have fours over sixes (that would be a "weak" full house) or fours over kings (still "weak") rather than the other way around. Would someone hang in there with a pair of kings or a pair of sixes after the flop? (I wouldn't).
I agree the thought of someome slow-playing a pair of aces is scary. Sometimes you need courage to play Omaha high/low.
Just my opinion. I'm no expert either. Just a student of the game.
Buzz
2 players had a 23 nut low. And somebody had pocket aces for the nut full. Only had to pay two bets on the river though.
Buzz, re the KK, 66 players, it's hard to judge without knowing how tough the game is, but the hands I was considering were a combination like 23KK or 2366, where the player is basically going low but makes an accidental high.
That being said, I've had players beat me by hitting a 2-outer with a big pair on the river.
While it's the hand to fear, I was supprised to hear that there was a lurker with A's. He of course made a horrible non-raise on the flop.
Fred - "the hands I was considering were a combination like 23KK or 2366, where the player is basically going low but makes an accidental high."
Good point. I thought about that possibility. 2366 is so awful that I disregarded it, but you're right about some opponents playing it. 23KK is a hand more likely to be played by an opponent.
"That being said, I've had players beat me by hitting a 2-outer with a big pair on the river."
Me too.
"While it's the hand to fear, I was supprised to hear that there was a lurker with A's. He of course made a horrible non-raise on the flop."
I agree, especially because I think you have to make the low draws pay or fold. You also want anyone lurking with a four and hoping for quads to pay for that priviledge. Yet I like to mix up my play, thus allowing for an occasional non-raise in situations like this.
I know players who almost always slow play big hands after the flop, waiting to trap you on the turn. (Sometimes they slow play when they hit on the turn, waiting to trap you on the river). After they have done this once or twice, you sort of get to expect it. Aces full after the flop is such a strong hand that, in all honesty, I would expect two opponents against whom I have played to slyly (they both think) slow play it.
It's difficult to allow for someone slow playing a hand that should probably be bet, unless you are familiar with the betting patterns of that player. Even then, you're going to get stuck sometimes (as Ship It did here). But you can't let those players intimidate you.
With fours full of sixes, I might well have quietly folded. With fours full of aces, I wouldn't. I figure Ship It's fours full of aces is a four to three favorite to win on the river, when all the cards have been turned, if he has no useful information as to his opponent's hands. (0.57 to 0.43, assuming Ship It started with seven opponents). My point is that IMHO Ship It is the favorite here and should win 4 times out of 7. Of course that means he should lose 3 times out of 7. This was one of them.
Just my (calculated) opinion. Never a guarantee my math is correct.
Buzz
ship it,
Ad 4d 4h and you have As4s3h8h.
I would check and fold. Too many holes in this ship for me.
paul
Paul - As8h4s3h is not the underdog when the flop is Ad4d4h. Period. You do realize that As8h4s3h is the favorite here, right? I don't mean just the favorite for the moment (after the flop), but still the favorite on the river after the next two (random) cards are turned.
Buzz
Oops. Change my post just a little bit. I was tired and used the wrong article. Substitute "a" for "the" in several places to make my meaning clearer, as follows:
Paul - As8h4s3h is not an underdog when the flop is Ad4d4h. Period. You do realize that As8h4s3h is a favorite here, right? I don't mean just a favorite for the moment (after the flop), but still a favorite on the river after the next two (random) cards are turned. Buzz
Buzz,
Four people take the flop plus you. A passive game with limpers who are looking for an ace because they have 2,3,xx in their hand. Could also have a AAxx limper in there also. Everbody got helped by the A except you. An Ace means tighten up since you didn't hit the flop with a 2 and a Spade. I would save my money for a later hand. Also it was unraised suggesting that nobody has A23x in their hand giving the AAxx more credibility. Slowplaying AAxx is almost automatic in this situation waiting for the turn and bigger bets. Your also out of pos'n to play this hand aggressively to eliminate people. Another reason I would check is to see who bets and who drops. In this case everyone would of stayed, so therefore I drop.
Paul
Paul - Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Very logical. Makes sense.
Not raising pre-flop with a pair of aces in late position makes sense to me, and slow playing aces full after the flop in some games also makes sense. Thus I would be aware of the possibility an opponent might have a pair of aces.
And yet....
I was sitting in an Omaha high/low game earlier today then the flop was A-A-4. Since I had already folded before the flop, I was just an observer. The turn was a jack and the river a king. Someone at one end of the table who had an ace, for trip aces, bet the flop and then bet the turn. The winner of the hand was someone who called both bets out of position with a pair of kings, caught the king on the river, and then bet the kings full of aces for value.
I consider it a mistake to play an aceless K-K-X-X in a full game when there is a pair of aces on the flop, and betting the kings full into an opponent who has been betting all the way and who very well might have aces full seems stupid, but there it is. Earlier today I saw it happen. Moreover, it's not unusual for me to see my opponents making mistakes.
When I respond to posts, it is in terms of my experience in the games in which I play. $4-$8 is within the betting range of the games in which I do play.
I can see someone playing a pair of aces here, but I also can see someone playing 6-4-X-X, K-4-X-X, or even worse.
Games differ. Opponent's play differs. Even if I was in the game, it would be difficult for me to know for certain what to do. A rule of thumb in backgammon is, "When in doubt hit." One of my personal poker rules is, "When in doubt call."
However, I appreciate your logic, which would be correct in many games and, as it turns out, is correct here. Gives me something to think about.
Regards,
Buzz
"Four people take the flop plus you. A passive game with limpers who are looking for an ace because they have 2,3,xx in their hand. Could also have a AAxx limper in there also. Everbody got helped by the A except you. An Ace means tighten up since you didn't hit the flop with a 2 and a Spade. I would save my money for a later hand. Also it was unraised suggesting that nobody has A23x in their hand giving the AAxx more credibility. Slowplaying AAxx is almost automatic in this situation waiting for the turn and bigger bets. Your also out of pos'n to play this hand aggressively to eliminate people. Another reason I would check is to see who bets and who drops. In this case everyone would of stayed, so therefore I drop."
See my original qualification re expert status, but I don't agree with a lot here.
First of all, this must have been just a passive game, but an exceptionally passive game. There were 2 players with the nut low after the turn, in a 4 player pot, any they managed 1 raise between them. If the game is this passive, I don't see that you would get a pre-flop raise even from a A23x. By itself, I don't think this is much evidence of a lack of split A's in the other hands. The fact that there was no pre-flop raise is some evidence that the A's were not there. Sure, there could be an AA limper (as there evidently was), but the odds say no.
As Buzz pointed out, this is actually a GOOD flop for you, even if it is a dangerous one. You are already pl.aying for 5.5 small bets (the original post I think implies the blinds folded) . Betting the flop into this board may win immediately against something like 1 high draw, and 2 dry A2 or A3's. After 3 callers, I think betting the turn was too much, but it's close. Not betting the flop may be a big mistake if you split the pot with a 25 that makes a low on the river, when you could have dropped him with a bet on the flop. Ideally, you want 3 low limpers chasing you to the river, and to scoop a sizable pot when no low hits the board.
I also think the A's made a terrible slowplay. Giving free cards to the low draws is exactly what you don't want to do. Raising here doesn't even cost much if the betting goes the same way. Ship It will probably check the turn, so there are 8 small bets on the flop, and only 4 big bets on the turn, instead of the other way around. And not raising my cost half the pot, or all the pot if another 4 hits on the turn (not to mention the 235 of diamonds).
FTS,
"Weak full houses are a difficult hand to play in Omaha/8. They win money, but they get beat a lot in expensive pots.
Your big worry here is someone slow playing A's. "
This is what you wrote and it is hard to tell exactly who is doing the betting, raising, who has high who has low in this hand and how many are playing.
Isn't that pretty much what I'm saying. By checking and seeing what the other players are doing you can better decide what to do with your hand. Since 3 people called at least one of them probably has 23xx. Now what do the other two have to stay or call A23x, AAxx, 34xx, etc. Since nobody raised the bring-in I feel that it is unlikely that there is an A23x. IMO there is a good probability that someone has AAxx. Since nobody dropped after the flop with a single A2 or A3. In this scenario nobody would of dropped, therefore I would of dropped. For someone to slowplay AAxx is pretty standard and raise on the turn when the bets are doubled in a passive game this way he keeps everbody in and doesn't let anybody think he has A's.
Paul
In a recent 15-30 stud game, I was the bring-in with 333. I just opened with 5, two players called, the the last player, a long time pro and the best player at the table, raised with a T up. I called, as did the other players.
The turn brought blanks to me and the next player, but the last two players caught tens, giving the first QT and the second TT on the board. TT bet 30, I called, QT raised, TT reraised, I called, QT called all-in.
TT bet 5th and 6th streets, and I called. On the river, she threw her hands up and said, "What the hell are you calling me with? You know I have 3 Tens!" Neither one of us improved, she won.
I called on the chance that she had AA in the hole, or that I would fill up and she wouldn't. Do you think I should have played this differently?
Did you want QT in there with you, especially all-in for a freeroll in a sense?
The T catch by the Q strengthens your catch/dont' catch scenario, but catching on either end by the good player cracks you regardless (unless case 3 floats down...)
I think I would have raised fourth street to drop QT and other hangers, putting you ahead (trips vs. Aces up) and sweating, or behind (overtrips) with some chance to catch a winner.
I would have played the same way, I thing we both have to fast play low trips to force players out. A full bet on the bring in and a re-raise before the turn, a raise on the turn would have had you heads up (Heads up to trip tens in this case)
remember the old axiom....2 out 3 times when the door card pairs means trips 67%... this is one of the cardinal points in stud I never ignore.... a raise from you on fourth or fifth street should gave you some solid info about TT's hand ,,,saved several big bets.
I agree. reread 7csfap. paired door card by an opponent (esp a good one) usually means death. Only chance was to raise on the bring-in an/or reraise on 3rd st to try to knock as many opponents as possible.
Nightstick, the old axiom says that a pair doorcard means trips 67% of the times WHEN SOMEONE STARTING WITH A PAIR and not all the times! About the hand I think you didn't make great errors as it's very very hard to release a rolled up trips (maybe only with a higher trips exposed in some other board). We all have read in this forum how many times this thing happened. Strange to note, many times a paired doorcard with another card of that rank out (in early boards, of course) means trips. Marco
The old axiom is wrong. Assuming she started with a pair, then it is true that 2/3 of the time she has a split pair. But, once the door card pairs, Bayes' law comes into play. When you 'know' someone started with a pair, and then they pair their door card, the chance that they made trips is 4/7.
The intuitive reason for 4/7 vs. 2/3 is that it is easier to match your kicker (3 cards) then match your pair (2 cards).
Of course, all calculations assume all relevant cards are live.
I have been victim to this in 10/20 and 5/10 games. I now would have reraised 3rd street. The action following would have told me a lot about the hand. The worst thing your re-raise would do is to tell everyone you most likely had trips. The TT might have folded. On 4th st, the T pairs. If he bets into you, you are in trouble and should consider tossing the hand even with trip 3's. If he check raises you, say goodbye. The confusing part is the other T which I suspect was instrumental in making you stay, but that is not material. As someone above posted, pairing the door card is a bitch when it is against you. If you cannot get respect from your raise which is obviously trip 3's, you are beaten.
3BB,
When I get raised and I'm rolled up with no matter what, I reraise. This way I can tell if the person has trips also and to put a little fear into him/her if they don't. You probably would of dropped ptl, and all-in, since the reraise would of told them you have trips and that's what you want them to do since you only have trip 3's. Now the good player calls and you get his T. He checks you bet you win!!!
Paul
I usually agree, but sometimes if I have an ace showng and am rolled up. I will not necessarily raise as to suck some players in by representing AA. The nice part is it gives me some control over the group. and I knlw if the other big pair or trips improves because I can see what falls (until the river of course)
Brett,
My thought has always been that you don't want to play small trips against a lot of opponents(I could be very wrong about that). A re-raise on 3rd from you certainly would've defined EVERYONE's hand, wouldn't've? :)
You'lda likely made $39 profit had you re-raised, but I'm not sure if that's the best you can hope for when rolled up. Would you have RR'd had she a A or K doorcard?
Bill
I would have played the hand the exact same way.
Some possible differences are:
1- reraise on 3 to get hand heads up. You will definitely get action from the 10's all the way down but if they are a tight player, you won't get too much action. If they are a good player, you will get action all the way unless you make an open pair.
2- reraise on 4 to get hand heads up. I would do this as a conservative maneuver as I don't give 10's 3 10's at any point in this hand.
With a 10 hitting, I didn't give that player 3 10's at any point of the hand until she opened her mouth. In fact, I would have raised on 6th. The original raise didn't give away much as any good hand, including non-pair hands could have been raised in that spot.
Even after all the raises, I don't even put her on Aces up because I think she could have been reraising to get you out and play with all-in. Certainly any two pair is a raising hand there as Q10 has to be put on Q's or a draw and a two pair reraise is common. I might even have raised on 4 after 10's 3 bet the pot. Then if 5 bet, I might have given her 3 10's but at that point I am calling all the way due to pot odds.
Folding is not an issue during this hand, ever. Unless you put in 6 bets on 4th, in which case you might fold on the river.
Just my two cents worth.
Yes. A vodka tonic before the hand might have helped. Plus you should have reraised on third street. Anyone that doesn't agree don't know how to play this game.
vince
Doesn't reraising on 3 kind of depend on the nature of the game, who's playing, and what the images are all around? In general, I don't want to play 4 handed but if they are players that love to call and hate to call double raises, and if the original raiser could have a combo hand like KJ10, then raising would be the worst option.
Ideally you want to play heads up against the big pair but the worst possible case is everyone folding or playing the 10's heads up and her folding on 4th or 5th.
I prefer heads up action to the end but I want action to the hand. If I think there is even a 20% chance all might fold and I win between $30-50, then I am slow playing for sure.
Russ,
When you are the bring in with a very small card and someone raises in a multiway (3 or more opponents) pot your absolute must play is to reraise regardless of the game type. If the pot goes heads up there is a lot of dead money in the pot already so you are not just winning the bring in plus if they all call you now have a big pot with the best hand and a lot of callers. I want a lot of players with a big pot if I can't get heads up or 2 opponents tops with small trips. A reraise into a 3 or 4 way field usually gets me one or the other. In stud players call more when the pot gets big because Sklansky and Malmuth taught them too, so playing these small trips fast is the way to go in these types of situations. My opinion.
Vince.
I have to agree with Vince. If you reraise you do a couple of things (1) get more money in the pot (2) eliminate the straight/flush draws if they have any brains because your draw to a full house or quads overshadows their draw of 2 cards to the straight and flush and who would play those odds against you? (3) put you in a place to possibly get a free card if you want. By not reraising when you are the bring in is essentially slow playing, and your hand is not strong enough to slow play. The avg winning hand in a 5 way pot is about trip 7's. If you reraise you will probably (or probababably as GW Bush might say) be able to control the action. High cards bet 4th street and might check to you. Looking at the bord determines your next move.
Thanks for all the responses, but some of you didn't read the problem correctly. Anyway, I don't usually reraise when rolled up. I think that I'm so far ahead, I'd rather let the pot build first.
It doesn't make any difference if I reraise in the games I play, and that includes the 60-120 game I played tonight. If they're coming, they're coming. The price doesn't deter them.
Raising after she paired her doorcard wouldn't have worked either, since she plays well enough to represent the hand whether she has it or not. I thought that my only chance to get through this without losing a lot was to just call her down.
Something you all missed, and that I missed while playing this hand: I said I called hoping she had 2 big pair. She is a player I respect, and she also respects my play. She told me later that if she had AA in the hole, she would have backed off, because she knew something was up when I kept calling.
Had I been thinking about what she was thinking I was thinking she was thinking, etc, I would have folded the hand on 5th or 6th. There was nothing she could have that I could beat. Like she told me, the Poker Gods just put out the case T to distract me.
Next time I'll pay more attention, but next time the player holding bigger trips will be an idiot calling station and I will pay him off all the way.
I don't think there is any way you could ever have even thought