collection of 2+2 posts micro limits

COLLECTION OF 2+2 POSTS
MICRO LIMITS
Ed. 1.0 (I think this is good)
Thanks to everyone who actually wrote these posts. I did nothing
but put them together.
Also, thanks to everyone who looked over this and commented
before I was able to get this far.
davelin
DMBFan23
GrunchCan
tiltaholic
Shillx
Finally, a big thanks go out to tiltaholic and illunious for starting 2
“favorite thread” discussions that helped me find a lot of what
you’ll see here.
- mmbt0ne
Table of Contents
Ed Miller Section … 1
Why aren’t you guys crushing these Microlimit games
Low-Limit Preflop Quiz
I hate TPTK!!! (rant)...(long ass rant) by blackaces13
I Think My Biggest Leak Is...
"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood…”
Common Party $3-$6 Situation
Big pot! Big mistake?
How many times did I wimp out? (River Raising) by colehard
Preflop Play: Take off the training wheels
Single posts/replies
2
9
14
18
23
26
31
36
39
42
Hand Quiz Section … 48
A preflop quiz of sorts. (Chris Daddy Cool)
quiztime, yay (Chris Daddy Cool)
Festus22’s Quiz #2 (Festus22)
It's Time for Quiz #3!!! (Festus22)
Another Installment from the Quizmeister (Festus22)
49
59
65
79
86
Chris Daddy Cool Section … 94
Reverse Implied Odds
AA hand against bisonbison
When to bet out or checkraise the flop with top pair
Let the debate begin, coldcalling suited connectors
110
Odd AA hand
95
99
107
114
GuyOnTilt Section … 116
Commerce 2/4: TT on the Button
My Duel with ThingDo
Ed Miller will just love this one: KK in MP
MK would be proud: QQ on the Button
Very Difficult Hand For Me: QQ in the SB
AKs River Decision (The Dude)
117
121
125
142
145
150
Entity Section … 158
AK hits top pair, rivers top two, and I never raise.
QQ against a preflop capper.
Fastplaying is the new slowplaying
159
163
169
Homer Section … 171
Hand Reading Exercise
DO NOT ASSUME YOUR OPPONENTS ARE SANE
Streaks
172
176
177
Clarkmeister Section … 183
5 things LL players should “unlearn”
Interesting 3-6 Problem
Did I do anything wrong here? (Evan)
196
2-4 Hand
184
190
202
Nate tha’ Great Section … 209
You Play Too Tight
Blind Stealing Experiment
This almost never means trips (DMBFan23)
Suited Connector Stats
Settle this discussion, please. (Buckshot)
77
Other Thread
210
236
241
245
253
260
s … 265
Another Turn Fold (arfsananto)
266
Flopped set on a suited flop: Cap of fold? (spacemonkey57)
How did you become a better player?? (Kilroy)
LP with Kx-suited (Zetack)
Taking advantage of dead money or going LAGish (sfer)
Too many fish at one table a bad thing? (mattw)
Pump the pot or not? (Quercus)
288
8-handed online 20/40: shaky protection (astroglide)
269
271
275
279
282
291
1
Ed Miller Section
Know These Things
MajorKong/NPA = Ed Miller
You know how you have that lame ass name that really isn’t yours as your handle? Well, Ed did too at one
point. His was MajorKong. NPA means Noted Poker Authority
BottlesOf = Johnny Boom Boom
Disclaimer
This is very important, because I’m willing to bet that NPA’s advice get’s misused more than any other
poker author. Of course, it’s probably due to the fact that the plays he recommends involve a lot of thought,
and most people skip that step when utilizing said advice. Think about every play you are making before
you do it, and know why what you are doing is better than the alternatives.
Also, don’t feel the need to utilize all of this at once. If something doesn’t make sense, or makes you
uncomfortable, take a step back, and think about it. Don’t utilize something because Ed Miller said so, you
will be using it wrong.
I leave the rest up to dfscott, I think he pretty much summed it up:
dfscott
Going back to read some of Ed Miller's old posts and found this.
Excellent. Every novice 2+2'er should read.
Depends on what you mean by "novice." If you're talking about someone new to serious poker, I disagree. I
read this about a month into my foray into on-line poker, tried to follow this advice, and got absolutely
killed. This post (and the information contained herein) needs to be tempered with a solid background in the
fundamentals (i.e., experience). Once I had several thousand hands (and 2 or 3 poker books) under my belt,
it all started making sense, and I was able to apply it appropriately.
Don't get me wrong, it's good information. However, it's like trying to teach a kid to drive using a Ferrari -it makes a lot more sense to teach 'em the basics in dad's Oldsmobile and then they can learn the Ferrari
later. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing and I don't want the brand new folks to end up
wrapped around a telephone pole.
I hope these threads help you like they have me.
2
Why you guys aren’t crushing these Microlimit games…
Ed Miller
I have a secret. I know why most of you aren't crushing these Microlimit games. It isn't because you guys
aren't smart, because you are. It isn't because you don't put the effort in to study, because you do. It isn't
because your opponents play well, because they don't.
It's because you fold too damn much.
Most low-limit books contain advice that looks like this:
"Fit or fold."
"If you don't have the best hand or the best draw, fold."
"If you have bottom or middle pair, fold."
"If you have a pocket pair and don't hit your set on the flop, fold."
"If you have top pair, but don't like your kicker, fold."
"If you have a straight draw, but there are two of a suit on board, fold."
"If you have a flush draw, but the board is paired, fold."
This advice is terrible. In fact, I can prove that this advice is terrible right now. You are playing 1-2, and
FishyPoker.com has decided to run a promotion. They are going to add $10 million to this one pot. How
should you play? Well, however you play, you sure as hell shouldn't fold. Any dumbass who folds in a $10
million pot for a $2 bet is a moron.
Now you may say, "well, this is an extreme case," and it is. But the problem with the advice is that it
IGNORES THE SIZE OF THE POT, which happens to be the single most important factor in any decision
you make at the poker table. Every time you make any decision... whether it be betting or check-raising the
flop or calling on the river, you need to be saying to yourself, "how big is the pot?" If you aren't, then you
are playing poor poker.
In the past few weeks, I have seen approximately two zillion posts from players that folded top pair or an
overpair in a big pot for just one bet. This is on the flop, on the turn, and on the river.
"I thought someone had to have me beat."
"I didn't like my kicker."
"I didn't want to be dominated."
"With all those players in, someone had to have a flush draw."
When the pot is big (and big essentially means as little as that there was a preflop raise) you need to focus
on winning the pot. Big pots are the time to play aggressively and maximize your chance to win, not to save
bets. Folding is saving bets. You should NOT be looking to fold in big pots... you should be constantly
thinking about how you are going to win it, even if you don't have the best hand sometimes.
There was a post just this morning where someone limped in with A3s on the button after two limpers. The
big blind raise behind and everyone called. The flop was AQ2, and the action went BB bet, one limper
called, and it was your action. You have top frickin pair in a big (i.e. raised) pot, and it is one bet to you.
The BB's bet shows no more strength than what he showed when he raised before the flop. He could easily
have KQ or TT or 76s. The limper called... that means he has.. well, two cards. You are getting 11-1 on a
call, and did I mention that you have top frickin pair?
And yet half (or more) of the advice told him to fold. TERRIBLE! Horrible, terrible, wretched poker
advice. The pot is big, you have a good hand, no one has shown any real strength, and you are gonna bail?
Absurd. Yes, sometimes the raiser will have AQ and you'll lose a couple of bets. But the pot is already way
bigger than a "couple of bets." And when you have the raiser beaten, he's gonna be the one losing a couple
of bets to you when he pays YOU off with his KK or whatever.
WHEN THE POT IS BIG DO NOT FOLD DECENT HANDS FOR ONE BET! Just stop doing it.
3
You know those guys that play "fearless" poker and seem to win? When the pot is big, it is time to play
fearless. Throw in that extra bet or raise. If you crash and burn, so be it. That is winning poker, though. If
you don't have the stomach for it, take up tiddle-e-winks.
The time to save bets is when the pot is small. Make your prudent folds in the four-ways for one bet pots.
For the love of god, think about this and reevaluate your game, guys. If I folded as much as you guys do, I'd
be flat broke right now.
Ok. Every one of you now officially owes me a beer next time you come to Vegas. Don't think I'm not
gonna collect, either...
chim17
I've been debating this same thing recently; as I think I was losing some bets by throwing away hands that
seemed marginal to me.
The problem is this advice kind of goes against the general "tight aggressive" approach that one would read
about. However, the way that I combatted this scenario is just to keep my pre flop standards still very high,
but made myself willing to call down single bets with middle pair, overcards, etc. I've found since I've
started doing that I have begun to win many more hands, and the few games since I started seeing the river
more with good hands have been far more profitable.
Ed Miller
The problem is this advice kind of goes against the general "tight aggressive" approach that one would
read about.
It doesn't. You play tight before the flop. You play tight in small pots. You play AGGRESSIVELY in big
pots.
When the pot is small, it's not that important to play aggressively, but it is crucial to play tight.
When the pot is large, it's not important to play tight, but it is crucial to play aggressively.
Also, quite frankly, a lot of what you read about poker isn't worth the paper it is printed on. 2+2 books give
solid, reliable advice. Most other books give you pathetically weak-tight advice. It is advice that is designed
to prevent you from losing too much money, not advice that will help you be a big winner.
I'm not going to name names, but you guys would be better off scrapping all those "low-limit" books you
read and just study your ass off on the 2+2 library.
chim17
By all means I wasn't trying to downplay your advice, just stating why I think most people that are trying to
learn poker have trouble calling down in these situations.
I certainly struggled with it because the things I read. However, I do think its great advice, just difficult to
handle at times for someone that is trying to play "tight" as they are "taught".
As you saw in my other post in this thread, thanks for the advice I kinda learned this on my own but the
reinforcement from seeing someone in the know say it will help a lot with my confidence.
Ed Miller
Ya.. I know what the problem is. The root of the problem is all these crappy books that have been written.
It's not natural for people to make these mistakes.. these are mistakes that are "taught" as you put it.
John Deere
Maybe this is premature, but I think that you make a very valid point. One thing that I have found of my
4
game is that I play too tight -- if the flop doesn't hit me hard, I usually drop it. The result is that I don't win
many hands, and quite frankly get bored playing. Yesterday, I started playing two tables at once, which I
think has vastly improved my game -- because between the two tables I see quality cards more often, I feel
less pressured to play marginal hands. In any case, here's a hand I just had...
Party $0.50/$1... not too loose, for a Party table
Hero is the SB, dealt 9
8
EP1 folds, EP2 limps, folded to CO who limps along with the button. Hero completes, and BB raises.
Called by all except button, Hero calls.
The flop is: 5
3
7
Hero checks, BB bets and is called around. Hero thinks about calling the gutshot straight for a moment,
knowing that he was trained himself to let it go, however tempting it is. But then Hero thinks about
Majorkong's post, and takes a look at the pot odds (around 12:1), and decides to call.
The turn: 6
Sweet! Hero checks, BB bets, called around, Hero raises, BB 3-bets, folded to Hero who caps.
River: Q
Crap, hope he didn't have A
bets out, BB calls.
K
or something, but he has been playing as if he has a pocket pair. Hero
Hero takes down $17.75. BB says, "y did you stay in?"
I don't want to get too excited about hitting a gutshot, but I will say this -- many books I have read say that
when the competition gets looser, you have to just get tighter. When thinking about the math behind that, it
doesn't make much sense. Perhaps tighter with your big cards, and looser with your draws?
All I know is that I took my fourth or fifth foray into online poker a couple days ago, after many failed
attempts over the past year or so. I played tight and wasn't losing money, but wasn't making any either.
Finally, I said, "All right, that's it, I need to stop playing like a total wuss." So I became more aggressive,
loosened up just a little, and in the past 36 hours have just about doubled by bankroll.
Ed Miller
Folding your hand for one bet on the flop would have been a big mistake. You have not just a gutshot, but
also two overcards. I'm glad that you have corrected your play as a result of my post. I hope you make the
change permanent, not just while this post is fresh in your mind.
TheRake
I had a problem when this was first posted. I think encouraging new players to chase when they may or may
not have proper odds to do so is a little irresponsable. Part of playing winning poker is realizing when you
are beat and laying down a hand that may be drawing dead or near dead regardless of how big the pot gets.
Regardless of what people think or say on this board weak/tight is not a terrible way to play micro limit
games. It is true that it may not maximize winnings, but it WILL make you a winning player at this level.
Learning when to turn up the heat and when to dial it back is something that can only come with experience.
Telling someone it is okay to chase if they have not taken the time or fully obsorbed the proper mathematics
to make this determination simply because the pot is large is just a way to make this learning curve a very
expensive one.
I posted earlier in this thread to ask what Majorkong considered "crushing the game" and got no response.
5
IMO "crushing" is a realive term and I think may be relavent to some of the winning players who post here.
I apologize if it seemed sarcastic, but I felt it was a legitamite question.
In closing I would just like to state that I greatly respect Majorkong's experience and knowledge. In fact I
actively seek out his posts, but I suspect that this post may do more harm than good for some of the newer
players that are still trying to learn this great game.
TheRake
Ed Miller
I had a problem when this was first posted. I think encouraging new players to chase when they may or
may not have proper odds to do so is a little irresponsable. Part of playing winning poker is realizing when
you are beat and laying down a hand that may be drawing dead or near dead regardless of how big the
pot gets.
Frankly, I think encouraging new players to lay down all their marginal hands regardless of pot size is
irresponsible. Yet this is exactly what almost every book on hold 'em advises you to do. And I see it
manifest in post after post on this board.
Laying down top pair is the exception, not the rule. This is doubly true when the pot has been raised
preflop. Yet in post after post, I see, "well, Axs is really a poor hand because you have to lay down if you
flop an ace."
Well, if you HAD to lay down if you flopped an ace, then Axs WOULD be a pretty crappy hand.
Fortunately, you don't, and Axs is a pretty decent hand... especially hands like A9s and A8s. Someone
drilled it into all these newbies heads that they need to fold if they flop an ace. It certainly wasn't me.
I think the main problem is the fundamental concept of "being beat." You cannot be beaten until the river.
Before the river, even if you are behind, you are drawing, not beaten. You have a chance to win. It is this
chance, plus the chance you are ahead, plus the big overlay that the pot gives you that makes it correct to
continue when in doubt.
The big dividing line is whether the pot was raised before the flop or not. It is difficult to play too loosely
after the flop when it was raised before the flop. On the other hand, when the pot was unraised before the
flop, you need to really start evaluating the quality of the hands you want to continue with, including top
pair. This is the spot where you fold your ace-rag hands if it looks like you might be drawing slim. This is
the spot where you fold your weak draws because you are worried someone might raise behind you. This is
the spot where a board full of potential redraws can turn a call or raise into a fold.
Make no mistake, though. The money in low-limit hold 'em is made by those who know how to push the
edges and win more than their share of the big pots. Limit hold 'em is just plain not a game of laydowns.
Those who make the expert laydowns (as opposed to the routine ones that many players make), but do not
aggressively pursue the big pots, will be only marginal winners at best.
Regardless of what people think or say on this board weak/tight is not a terrible way to play micro limit
games. It is true that it may not maximize winnings, but it WILL make you a winning player at this level.
I agree. You can play tight before the flop, and weak-tight poker after the flop and beat small limit games.
You will not beat them for that much, but you will beat them.
But why learn to play that way? If you learn to play that way, you will not be prepared to move up. If you
play that way in mid-limit games, you will not win. You will never be more than a mediocre player. The
time to start learning to play correctly is now, in micro-limits. Why learn a simple strategy that beats only
very soft games when you can learn a more complex strategy that can beat any limit hold 'em game?
Especially when the more complex strategy will win much more in the soft games as well.
6
You guys are here to learn to play solid, winning poker. Solid winning poker means playing tight before the
flop, tight in small pots, and aggressively in big pots.
Ed Miller
So several of you have objected to my post because I only talked about big pots and little pots without
mention of "pot odds." I intentionally did not mention that concept for a couple of reasons:
1. Discussing "pot odds" automatically makes many newer players assume that they are behind. "I have
middle pair, and I am getting 8-to-1 to call, so I can call because of the pot odds." The assumption, of
course, is that you are behind and drawing. This will often be the case when you have middle pair, but it
won't always be the case. The chance that your hand is best is more important when the pot is big.
2. Discussion of "pot odds" makes people play more passively. People think "I have odds to call." They
don't think "I'm getting 8-to-1, so I should raise." Frequently you should raise instead of call when the pot is
big. The reason is that you improve your chance to win the pot with a raise. When the pot is large, that
improved chance is often worth more than the extra bet that you invest.
When you have a marginal hand in a big pot, your hand has value for two reasons. First, you may improve...
a chance that you can quantify mathematically. Second, you may have the best hand (or be in the position to
eliminate the person with the best hand if no one has a good hand). This chance is much harder to quantify.
But it is also VERY costly to ignore. So the pot is laying you 8-to-1. You have a hand that is 14-to-1 against
to improve.. but it might be the best hand. What should you do? Well, I can't tell you. But I can tell you that
IN GENERAL, when the pot is big, you should continue and when the pot is small, you should fold.
Why should you continue when the pot is big but fold when it is small? 8-to-1 is 8-to-1, after all. The reason
is that later bets are smaller in proportion to the pot when it is big than when it is small. Calling down with a
marginal made hand is cheaper when the pot contains 16 small bets and it is 2 small bets to you than when it
contains only 8 small bets and it is 1 small bet to you.
Furthermore, raising to knock out marginal hands is more profitable when the pot is big. It is much easier to
improve your chances of winning by 5% with one extra bet than it is to improve it by 10%. Thus, there is
more value to staying in when the pot is big.
Ed Miller
You guys should read this thread. Decide what you would do and then read Sklansky's advice.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=437615&page=&view=&sb=5&o=
sublime
Also what exactly constitutes a "big" pot?
Ed Miller
Also what exactly constitutes a "big" pot?
There is no cutoff. Whenever you see advice that says, "Do this in a big pot," it really means, "As the pot
gets bigger, be more inclined to do this." That is to say, there are usually several factors to consider when
making a poker decision. One of those is pot size... which is a continuum. Depending on how the other
factors line up, the fulcrum (to use Backdoor's word) pot size can change.
With that disclaimer, in many situations you can begin to think of the pot as "big" once it is raised preflop.
rjc199
lol
This post just helped me win a pot. I just sit down and post:
Party Poker 0.50/1 Hold'em (9 handed)
7
Preflop: Hero is CO with 8 , A . Hero posts a blind of $0.50.
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, MP3 raises, Hero (poster) calls, Button folds, SB calls,
BB folds, UTG+1 calls.
Flop: (9 SB) A , 3 , J (4 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 checks, MP3 bets, Hero calls, SB folds, UTG+1 folds.
*The old me folds this flop. But I have top pair and a backdoor. I don't think I'm ahead but I'm going to see
the river because Majorkong said not to fold top pair.
Turn: (5.50 BB) Q (2 players)
MP3 bets, Hero calls.
River: (7.50 BB) 3 (2 players)
MP3 bets, Hero calls.
Final Pot: 9.50 BB
Main Pot: 9.50 BB, between MP3 and Hero. > Pot won by Hero (9.50 BB).
Results below:
MP3 shows 7c 8c (one pair, threes).
Hero shows 8h Ah (two pair, aces and threes).
Outcome: Hero wins 9.50 BB.
Is a turn bet in order here as a semi-bluff when I pick up the flush draw?
SpaceAce
I think the new you needs to raise this flop, not call.
rjc199
explain raising this flop, especially when I'm bet into by a pre-flop raiser and I don't like my kicker? I don't
see this sort of play advocated in any 2+2 book.
uuDevil
Some arguments for raising in this spot:
1) You might get a free card.
2) You might force weak draws to fold, possibly saving the pot for you if you are ahead.
3) You might win the pot right here (which might well have happened in this case).
StellarWind
Raise the flop. This is a very important concept.
Maybe MP3 is ahead of you, maybe he isn't. We could endlessly debate the chance that he has AK or KK or
99 or (apparently) 8 7 .
It just doesn't matter right now. This is a four-way pot. Every time you bet you get 3-1 odds if everyone
calls. Surely those are good enough odds for this raise to be +EV. If some of your opponents fold their
bottom pairs or gutshots you benefit in a different way by increasing your chance of winning the pot.
You cannot focus on whether putting in an extra bet or two is +EV or -EV against MP3. You don't even
know. What you do know is there are two other players trying to suck out this pot. Make them pay or make
them go away. That's a big EV gain that will more then compensate for the times MP3 might be ahead of
you.
Once it's heads up you can start worrying about what MP3 has and whether you want to minimize or
maximize the number of bets you put in against him.
8
Ed Miller
explain raising this flop, especially when I'm bet into by a pre-flop raiser and I don't like my kicker?
Ok. Here's the point. You should often avoid "easily dominated" hands before the flop, especially against a
raiser. You are trying to avoid trouble, making a cautious fold WHEN THE POT IS STILL SMALL.
Once you decide to see the flop (which you DEFINITELY should with your A8s in this hand), you simply
cannot play in fear of the worst. If you flop top pair, you still have a potentially dominated hand, but now
THE POT IS BIG! There is nothing you can do about it at this point, you just have to hope your hand is
best and protect your share of the pot by raising out opponents with weak draws.
The size of the pot dictates how you play your hand. When the pot is small, making cautious folds is often
correct. When the pot is large (which it is once it is raised preflop in this case), you MUST PROTECT
YOUR HAND... you have to gamble. You have too much to lose if you play cautiously.
BTW, folding in this situation is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE. It is an enormous error. I'm glad you fixed
that leak. But now you have to start playing more aggressively.
Ed Miller
Here is a repost of something I wrote on UPF to a couple people who were discussing this post.
************************************************
When I wrote this, I had no idea it would still be quoted six months hence. It was a specific plea for the
specific players who posted on the Microlimit forum in January to stop folding hands like top pair or an
overpair for one bet on the turn (often not even a raise... just a single bet) in huge (bigger than ten bet) pots
simply because "I figured I had to be beaten somewhere." They were drawing totally irrational conclusions
about the quality of their opponents' hands, and then making ridiculous and VERY expensive folds based on
those conclusions.
The main problem these guys had was "Monsters Under the Bed" syndrome. They constantly overestimated
the quality of their opponents' hands, and that left them always feeling like they were either drawing against
a ton of outs if ahead, or drawing almost dead if behind. They didn't understand that people can bet weak
hands and draws strongly sometimes... and that when the pot is big, you simply cannot allow yourself to be
knocked off a good hand by someone with a weak draw.
If you have specific, credible evidence that your opponents in fact DO have the hands you fear, then fine...
fold. My point is only that you really do need excellent evidence... don't just assume that you have to be
beaten or someone (but I don't know who) simply MUST have had a flush draw.
Finally, a single turn bet is almost never specific, credible evidence. People screw around with turn bets (as
opposed to turn 3-bets) all the time. Just because you raised the flop, and now they bet into you again on the
turn, does NOT mean overwhelming strength.
BTW, I appreciate that you find my post thought-provoking.
Ed
Low-limit Preflop Quiz
Ed Miller
I think many of you guys need to rethink how you approach preflop play in real loose low-limit games with
terrible opponents. Try these situations on for size:
You are playing in the $4-$8 game at Hawaiian Gardens. You have eight opponents, all of whom play
9
terribly. They each play more than fifty percent of their hands... something like any pair, any two suited, any
ace, any king, and any connector. They are not sensitive to position. They call raises with almost any hand
they would play for one bet. If it is three bets to them, they will tighten up some, but they will still play
hands like 33 and A2s. They raise their better hands... but better for them often means stuff like A9o, 55,
and K8s. As a result, most pots are five to eight ways, and 30-60 percent of pots are raised (depending on
who is presently steaming).
After the flop, your opponents play just as poorly. They call relentlessly with any reasonable hand at all.
They will play aggressively if they flop a decent made hand like top pair or a pretty good draw like a flush
draw. They don't do much hand-reading, and the hand-reading they do is pretty bad. They are only rarely
intentionally tricky.
What do you do in each of the following situations? For extra credit, rank each option (fold, call, and raise)
in order of goodness.
1. Two limpers to an MP who raises. You are next (two off the button) with 44.
2. UTG raises and gets four cold-callers. You are in the SB with KQs.
3. UTG raises and gets four cold-callers. You are on the button with A5s.
4. You have K9s UTG.
5. Folded to you in MP (four off the button) with 33.
6. Four players limp, and you have Q7s on the button.
7. UTG+1 raises, one player cold-calls, and you have AQo in MP (three off the button).
8. Two players limp, and you are on the button with K6s.
9. Five players limp, the SB completes, and you have 99 in the BB.
10. Three players limp. You have AQo in the SB.
11. UTG raises and gets five cold-callers. You have 73s in the BB.
12. Two players limp, an MP raises, and an LP 3-bets. You have JJ on the button.
13. Two players limp, and you have A8s in the cut-off.
14. Three players limp, and the button raises. You have K7o in the BB.
15. Four players limp, and the cutoff raises. You have ATs on the button.
16. Three players limp, and you have ATo in the cutoff.
17. UTG raises, and you are next (UTG+1) with ATs.
18. UTG raises, four people call, and you have 86o in the BB.
19. UTG raises. UTG+1 cold-calls, and you are next (five off the button) with KJs.
20. You raise UTG with QQ. Four people cold-call, and the BB 3-bets.
Please THINK before you answer. I anticipate that I will disagree with many of your gut reactions, so
before you write an answer, think about what concepts are appropriate.
10
PS: Since GoT seems to be dedicating many of his posts to me lately... I dedicate this one to him.
I’m not going to put all of the discussion here, because this is just a quiz. If you want to see what everyone
else wrote, go here:
http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=565949&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpa
rt=all&vc=1
ANSWERS BELOW
Ed Miller
Alright. In general, I think you guys did pretty well. The general theme of this quiz was to get you to think
about preflop play in terms of POT EQUITY, and not "I'm going to flop a flush draw only 1 out of 9
times..." Since these guys play so badly after the flop, you really need to be playing a lot of hands to take
advantage of them. You should still be the tightest player at the table, by far, but you should loosen up
significantly versus how you would play against a table of decent players.
Think about POT EQUITY... how often will I win this hand against x opponents. If I have five opponents,
and my hand will win 20% of the time, that is a good situation.
Another important point is that being suited becomes more important (because pots are always multiway),
and being dominated is somewhat less of a concern (because they raise on many hands and because there
are so many people in the pot with you).
Finally, the "don't cold-call raises... 3-bet or fold" idea does not apply as much to these game conditions.
That idea is much strong when the game is tight... when you are fighting over the blind money. Here, you
make your overlay from all the stupid calls your opponents make, not from the blind money. You should
often let them call.
1. Two limpers to an MP who raises. You are next (two off the button) with 44.
Call. There are already three in the hand, and given how loose these guys are, you will usually have two
more. Pocket pairs play great against this crew because they are willing to lose SO much after the flop.
Folding this hand is throwing money away.
2. UTG raises and gets four cold-callers. You are in the SB with KQs.
Raise. Despite your position, I think you should 3-bet. Your hand has so much POT EQUITY against five
others that I think you need to push your edge.
11
3. UTG raises and gets four cold-callers. You are on the button with A5s.
Call. With this many players, your suited ace will probably win more than its share despite the chance that
you are dominated. It won't win a whole lot more than its share, though, so it is probably better to call and
see the flop rather than pushing your small edge now. Raising is probably better than folding.
4. You have K9s UTG.
Call. This is a somewhat weak hand for UTG, but it is only one "notch" weaker than hands I play UTG at
more typical tables (A9s and KTs). I think it shows a profit against this crew. You have some high card
strength, so you don't mind as much if it comes back raised. I am out of position, but I still want to play this
hand six-handed for one or two bets against people who play poorly after the flop. Folding and raising are
reasonably close to calling EV-wise I think.
5. Folded to you in MP (four off the button) with 33.
Call. I included this example because it runs specifically counter to the advice given in HPFAP. In a
tougher game (explains HPFAP), you should probably fold 33 from MP if it is folded to you. You can't
expect multiway action, and you are concerned about being isolated. If you played, you'd probably raise to
take a shot at the blinds. But in this game, you can limp in now and still have a six-handed pot. Trying to
steal the blinds is silly in this game. Pocket pairs are again too good to fold.
6. Four players limp, and you have Q7s on the button.
Call. This is almost straight out of HPFAP. These guys play terribly, and you have a chance to sneak in with
a barely-worth-it hand and see the flop. Do it. Folding is close, and raising is probably bad (but not that
bad).
7. UTG+1 raises, one player cold-calls, and you have AQo in MP (three off the button).
Raise. The AQ Test from Feeney's book applies to a typical game and a tight UTG raiser. Here, the raiser is
not tight, and the game anything but typical. You should 3-bet to get more money in the pot and to improve
your position. You are probably better off playing this hand four ways for three bets, acting second-to-last
than six or seven ways for two bets, acting in the middle. Calling is better than folding.
8. Two players limp, and you are on the button with K6s.
Call. See Q7s. You have position and a reasonable hand. See a flop against these clowns.
9. Five players limp, the SB completes, and you have 99 in the BB.
Raise. You have six opponents and a MUCH better than 1/7 chance to win this hand. Your position is
terrible, but your edge is too big to miss out.
10. Three players limp. You have AQo in the SB.
Raise. Same with the 99 hand. You win this hand WAY more often than your share. Despite terrible
position, you have to put the money in.
11. UTG raises and gets five cold-callers. You have 73s in the BB.
Call. Your hand is not terrific, but it is good enough to take a flop getting 13-to-1 preflop and playing
against poor players. I'd probably call with any two suited in this spot.
12
12. Two players limp, an MP raises, and an LP 3-bets. You have JJ on the button.
Raise. This runs counter to the "if it's three bets cold to you, fold JJ" statement in HPFAP... but again, that
applies to decent players with reasonable raising standards. I'm not going to fold... my POT EQUITY is too
high (coupled with how much extra money you make after the flop when you spike a set). The question is
whether to raise or call. I think that's a reasonably close decision (not one to sit up all night thinking about).
I think raising might be marginally better because you probably do have an edge before the flop.
13. Two players limp, and you have A8s in the cut-off.
Raise. You have a good hand, position, and you will win WAY more than your share against your two
opponents with almost-random hands.
14. Three players limp, and the button raises. You have K7o in the BB.
Fold. Bugs Bunny mentioned that he thought this was in here so I could say to fold one of these hands. He
was right. I think you should probably fold here. Calling is really not that bad, though, IMO. In fact, calling
may be correct for exceptional postflop players. The fold would be clearer if your hand had less high card
value... say K2o.
15. Four players limp, and the cutoff raises. You have ATs on the button.
Raise. I'd 3-bet for value. You have the button and a great hand. You might be dominated, but since your
opponent will raise so many hands, it isn't all that likely. I think you will win this hand well more than your
share (1/6) of the time.
16. Three players limp, and you have ATo in the cutoff.
Call. I think calling and raising are close here, but calling is probably slightly better. You probably do have
an edge preflop, so by calling you are giving up some money. But I think your edge is modest... and the
advantage of having someone bet into you if you flop a ten is very significant. I think you should clearly
raise AJo, and clearly not raise A9o... ATo is on the border. If you wanted to argue for a raise, I wouldn't
put up much of a fight. I would if you wanted to fold, though...
17. UTG raises, and you are next (UTG+1) with ATs.
Call. This is too much hand to fold at this table. The situation is about as unpleasant as it could be (well, at
least it's not three bets), but I'd still call. ATs is a real big hand when your opponents play so loosely. Call,
and hope everything goes according to play (four more people cold-call behind you). I don't like raising,
because it does exactly what you don't want to do... force your opponents to tighten up. Fighting over the
blind money is useless (hell, most of it is going to get dropped anyway)... and, though I like my hand, I don't
think it is worth much in a heads-up battle against the UTG raiser.
18. UTG raises, four people call, and you have 86o in the BB.
Call. Similar to the 73s hand. Another important consideration when making these calls is WHERE the raise
comes from. In this hand (and the 73s hand), the raise comes from UTG... that is, from your left. With
hands like this, you will often flop a weak draw - bottom pair, a gutshot, a backdoor flush or straight draw,
etc. With these hands, you would really like to be able to see the turn for one bet. When the preflop raiser
(and likely flop bettor) is on your left, you check, the bettor bets, and then the whole table acts before you
do. If everyone calls or folds, then you can call, closing the action. This is very advantageous RELATIVE
POSITION when you have marginal hands like 73s and 86o. In fact, if the SB had raised each of these
hands, rather than UTG, I probably would have folded both of them.
19. UTG raises. UTG+1 cold-calls, and you are next (five off the button) with KJs.
Call. Similar argument to hand 17. This is too much hand to fold at this table. Yes, you might be dominated,
13
but your winning chances are just too good when you aren't.
20. You raise UTG with QQ. Four people cold-call, and the BB 3-bets.
Raise. I think you need to put in the final bet against these guys... your edge is too big. Against a tougher
table that just happened to feature four cold-callers this hand, you should probably just call... using your
position RELATIVE TO THE RAISER to force the field to call two cold on the flop (or the turn) when he
bets. Your preflop edge against a tougher field is smaller (because their hands are better), and the chance to
raise after the flop gains value. But when your opponents play awful hands before the flop, and terribly after
it, I think you give up too much when you miss bets like this.
I hate TPTK!!! (rant)...(long ass rant)
blackaces13
I just lost another 30BB's in a super soft Party .5/1 game and lately I simply cannot beat these games (at
least 100BB's down) and I have to vent about it because its driving me nuts.
Specifically, why the hell am I raising/check-raising a hand like TPTK againt 6 opponents I know full well
aren't going anywhere and who will not tell me I'm beat by raising at any point in the hand? I do it because
I've read to it and because I THOUGHT I understood why it made sense. But now if I'm on the button with
AQ and the flop comes Q high and there is an EP bet and 5 calls to me I do NOT feel right raising. As I've
said I still do it but WHY?
14
Top pair isn't getting out of this hand alive, even if a flush or staight doesn't take it. As I see it SOMEONE
will almost ALWAYS make 2-pair and there's a really good chance that someone has 2-pair right now and
will call the whole way to show it on the river. I'm no more likely than anyone else to make 2-pair so why
am I raising? I know I'm gonna have to call on the end with my stupid pair of queens, some will say that top
pair top kicker is how you make your $ in hold em, in my experience this is plain BS in super loose games.
Top pair NEVER holds up against 6 callers on the flop. You simply MUST improve, and I'm only as likely
as anyone else to improve, my hand is just much harder to fold on the river.
Some more gripes with TPTK. I have TPTK on the flop and raise the field, 5 players, from the button. The
next card comes off and it appears to be a blank. There's a bet and a call in front of me, why would someone
bet into a flop raiser? Because they just made 2-pair, I mean its stunningly obvious. Yet I will go ahead and
call this bet and a river bet knowing FULL WELL I'm beat. I don't even win 5% of these hands IMO but I
STILL call 2 bets with them. How can this be right?
How about when I have big slick himself and flop an ace or king with 5 players in front of me. There's a bet
and a raise to me. Now am I supposed to raise??? Call??? To me I swear I'd make/save more money folding
here. But I usually raise anyway and I have no justification for it other than what I've read in books and
what I read here. In my head I'm asking myself why I'm raising and I have NO IDEA why.
I guess thats about it. I'm not a newbie and I'm sure there's a solid reason for what I'm saying not being the
case, I just need to hear it. I understand why I would raise a single bettor to my right in these situations but
that's NOT what I'm asking about. I'm asking about raising the whole field with no HOPE of knocking out
worse hands than mine that have already called and also calling down with top pair top kicker against
players betting into me AFTER I raised the flop in LP. These situations do NOT seem profitable against
more than 3 opponents at most.
Someone give me a swift kick in ass, I really need it right about now.
Festus22
Seriously, TPTK is a very powerful hand if the top pair is an ace, king, queen or even a jack. I think what
you're seeing here is the inherent variance of an extremely loose, passive game. If you have TPTK against 5
opponents who call you down hoping to spike their 2-pair or draw, you will probably lose the majority
(>50%) of the hands you play BUT the pot size when you hold up will be MUCH higher. Winning fewer,
bigger pots = more variance than winning more smaller pots. In the long run, you will win more money in
this game but you will suffer more variance. If this is something you're getting frustrated with (and there's a
lot that feel the same way as you, trust me) then try to find a game that's a tick tighter (but not TOO tight
).
Big pocket pairs win the most money, TPTK (ie A-K) is next as anyone who has a ton of hands in
PokerTracker can attest.
MaxPower
You bring up a lot of things in your post and it isn't possible to address all of them.
The fact is that one pair is the easiest hand to outdraw, so when you are running bad you will find that you
are losing a lot of pots with one pair. In your games these will be very big pots and the will have a large
effect on your short term results.
Also, even though you could be slight loser when you have TPTK on the river, it doesn't mean that you
should always fold TPTK pair on the river. It also doesn't mean than you should fold TPTK pair when
someone bets into you. Your one pair hand often improves and you will make enough with 2 pair or better
to make it worthwhile.
I hope you feel better with your ranting, but getting all upset about it isn't going to be very helpful to your
game. Perhaps you are making some mistakes post-flop mistakes and you should focus on fixing them
rather than ranting.
15
Zetack
I hope you feel better with your ranting, but getting all upset about it isn't going to be very helpful to your
game. Perhaps you are making some mistakes post-flop mistakes and you should focus on fixing them
rather than ranting.
I think what he's saying is that there are betting patterns that seem to indicate that his TpTk is beat (getting
bet into on the flop when he's the PF raiser for example) but he's making the "textbook" plays anyway, and
in fact it turns out he usually is beat when he sees those patterns and he's looking for a better understanding
of why he should make those textbook plays and if they are in fact correct.
blackaces13
Thank you Zetack. This is exactly what I'm saying. I'm wondering if the conventional wisdom on TPTK is
flawed, and if not then lets see some evidence. Often times in large multiway pots my intuition is screaming
at me that I'm beat, but I still go into call down mode, and I'm finding I'm not winning enough of these
hands to make it worth calling, at least not recently.
I play TPTK aggressivly on the flop, and then slow down if other players now show aggression on the turn
or river, but I NEVER fold for one bet. My question really here is why? Why can't I fold this hand? Or why
can't I slow down right then and there on the flop and almost treat it like a drawing hand when I know I'm
gonna have 6 opponents with me looking at the turn? Then sure, if I make 2 pair I can speed up again. I'm
just not sure TPTK wins all that much more than its fair share against calling stations, so why am I raising if
I can't eliminate players?
That's my question anyway, and I put it out there as much to be told in no uncertain terms that I am
WRONG and furthrmore WHY I am wrong as I do to make a point. Moreso in fact.
Chris Daddy Cool
Top pair NEVER holds up against 6 callers on the flop.
Dude, thats just plain wrong.
I didn't read your whole post, because you're right, it is a long rant, but it looks to me you're just saying
things you dont' really mean and in your heart you really do love TPTK and you're just running into a
coldstreak.
Chris.
Ed Miller
But now if I'm on the button with AQ and the flop comes Q high and there is an EP bet and 5 calls to me I
do NOT feel right raising. As I've said I still do it but WHY?
You shouldn't automatically raise in this spot.
There's a bet and a call in front of me, why would someone bet into a flop raiser? Because they just made
2-pair, I mean its stunningly obvious. Yet I will go ahead and call this bet and a river bet knowing FULL
WELL I'm beat. I don't even win 5% of these hands IMO but I STILL call 2 bets with them.
That's just false. Even if your opponent does have two pair or better 100% of the time (which he doesn't),
you will still improve to beat him far more often than 5% of the time.
I'm asking about raising the whole field with no HOPE of knocking out worse hands than mine that have
already called and also calling down with top pair top kicker against players betting into me AFTER I
raised the flop in LP. These situations do NOT seem profitable against more than 3 opponents at most.
16
I don't know what books you've read that tell you to always raise in this spot, but they are wrong. My guess
is actually that you have misunderstood what the books were telling you to do (at least if they were 2+2
books.. ). BTW, my book will cover this topic in detail.
blackaces13
I don't know what books you've read that tell you to always raise in this spot, but they are wrong.
I don't want to get too much into it if it will be in your book but are you suggesting that there are times
where you would NOT raise the flop with TPTK. One bet to MK who was a preflop raiser, flopped TPTK,
and he calls!!! If this is true I think it is revolutionary and I'd like to hear about it. It certainly seems to go
against all the advice I've ever read, or at least I think it does.
Ed Miller
I don't want to get too much into it if it will be in your book but are you suggesting that there are times
where you would NOT raise the flop with TPTK. One bet to MK who was a preflop raiser, flopped TPTK,
and he calls!!! If this is true I think it is revolutionary and I'd like to hear about it. It certainly seems to go
against all the advice I've ever read, or at least I think it does.
*shrug*
I think you just haven't been around very long. I gave some example in one of those charging the flush
draws posts. Here's a quick example:
Two limpers to you on the button with A J . You raise. Both blinds and limpers call (10 small bets).
Flop is J 9 8 . SB bets and all three players call. You should call. Calling is clearly superior to
raising, IMO.
I posted some $20-$40 hand where I had J9s and flopped a pair of jacks and just called on the flop, waiting
to raise the turn. Not top kicker, but same idea. If you care to follow up, feel free to wade through some of
my old posts. I've addressed this issue several times before. Otherwise, you can wait for the book...
blackaces13
Two limpers to you on the button with A J . You raise. Both blinds and limpers call (10 small bets).
Flop is J 9 8 . SB bets and all three players call. You should call. Calling is clearly superior to
raising, IMO.
I posted some $20-$40 hand where I had J9s and flopped a pair of jacks and just called on the flop,
waiting to raise the turn.
Sorry, I'm a little dense. Are you saying that in the first example if a brick like a black 3 fell on the turn you
would raise the turn? Or is this a call down situation assuming a T or heart doesn't fall? Raising the turn
seems a little foolhardy to me.
My main fear is usually that someone has 2 pair or WILL have 2 pair by the river. I don't see how raising is
much of a +EV play if the flop is Q-8-5 rainbow and I have AQ but there's a bet and 4 callers to me, or I
check in the SB going for a CR but the guy to my left bets and EVERYONE calls. Now I hate raising,
although I do it anyway. I feel like I NEED to improve or I'm done, yet I still end up calling all the way
unimproved.
Ed Miller
Sorry, I'm a little dense. Are you saying that in the first example if a brick like a black 3 fell on the turn you
would raise the turn? Or is this a call down situation assuming a T or heart doesn't fall? Raising the turn
seems a little foolhardy to me.
Yes, if a blank falls on the turn (and no one new shows too much strength... a possible slowplay) you'd go
ahead and raise then.
17
There are a couple of reasons to raise the turn:
1. There is only one card to come. Your hand is much more likely to hold up after a brick on the turn than it
was on the flop.
2. People will call one bet on the turn, but then fold for one more. That happens occasionally on the flop,
but much more often on the turn. I have won several pots when someone called the first turn bet, and then
folded to one more bet. When they see my hand at showdown, they say, "Nice raise, I would have drawn
out on the river. I figured you had a set."
My main fear is usually that someone has 2 pair or WILL have 2 pair by the river. I don't see how raising
is much of a +EV play if the flop is Q-8-5 rainbow and I have AQ but there's a bet and 4 callers to me, or I
check in the SB going for a CR but the guy to my left bets and EVERYONE calls. Now I hate raising,
although I do it anyway. I feel like I NEED to improve or I'm done, yet I still end up calling all the way
unimproved.
People do not make two pair nearly as often as you seem to think they do. Furthermore, when you have top
pair, ace kicker, any board pair gives you a big two pair. I think you are running bad, and that has tainted
your sense of how often people make two pair.
Luke
MK,
In the case of the AJ hand you cited where you're on the button in a decent size pot - if it was checked to on
that cluttered board, would you ever just check behind, waiting until the turn to see what falls and act
accordingly?
If so, how often would you check behind in a spot like this and what exactly are you looking for (pot size,
level of board coordination, strength of your hand, opponents' tendencies, etc)?
Ed Miller
Do you ever just check behind in spots like this?
Generally, no. There is a big difference between calling a bet and checking with no bet. When there is
already a bet, everyone who has called has already committed to the hand. Not so when everyone has
checked. You can easily get several folds if you bet after everyone has checked. That is usually reason
enough to bet your hand.
I Think My Biggest Leak Is…
Ed Miller
I don't lay aces down enough when they are beaten...
I play medium pairs too aggressively after the flop...
I play medium pairs too often before the flop...
I misplay ace-king when I don't hit the flop...
I chase flushes and straights too often...
I don't chase often enough...
Have you said something like this about your game? If you have, you are wrong. In fact, not only are you
wrong - that isn't your biggest leak - but I know what your biggest leak is!
Your biggest leak is that you have no idea how to tell a big leak from a small one.
18
I'm not trying to be cute; it's true. You guys can't tell the big mistakes from the small, the important concepts
from the irrelevant. An inability to do this is a HUGE problem. People who can't decide what's important
"fix" things that aren't broken, tinker with their games in ways that have almost no impact on their winrate,
and sometimes overthink themselves into a tendency to make huge errors (i.e., folding too often in large
pots, playing too passively in multiway pots, etc.).
How do I know that none of the "leaks" I mentioned at the top (and many more I didn't mention) aren't your
biggest leak? Because they are all small leaks at worst! If any of these was your biggest leak, you would not
be reading this post. You would be cleaning up in the Commerce $40-$80 to the tune of $100/hr or more.
So how do you decide what's important? Well, there's a logical process. A "leak" is a tendency to make a
particular error systematically every time the opportunity to make it arises.
Folding every time you flopped a straight flush would be a leak (albeit a very bizarre one). But while it's
clearly a ludicrous leak to have, it's NOT a big one. You almost never flop a straight flush, so you never get
the chance to make your mistake!
The importance of a leak is determined by the product of two quantities:
1. The average magnitude of the error (in expectation) when you make it
2. The FREQUENCY with which you are presented the opportunity to make the error.
The magnitude of an error is defined by your AVERAGE LOSS every time you make the mistake. This is a
place where people go wrong all the time when they evaluate mistakes:
First, make sure you are thinking about your average loss... you cannot conclude that you are chasing
flushes too often simply because you missed the last four times and lost big pots. Think logically! How
often do you expect to make the flush ON AVERAGE, how big is the pot when you win, what is your
AVERAGE win or loss from playing the hand the way you are playing it?
Second, realize that there are certain types of errors that are almost never large in magnitude. Calling
preflop when you should fold is an example. Say two people limp, and I have J6s on the button. Should I
call? Probably not. But how big an error is it if I were to call?
It's small. Like tiny. A fraction of a fraction of a small bet. For instance, calling with J8s is probably correct.
J7s might even be right. That's about where the line is. If J7s is just about break-even, how bad could J6s
be?
Is J7s a monster compared to J6s? Do you fall off some magic profitability cliff between those two hands?
Will calling with J6s ruin you? NO! That's absurd. If J7s is break-even, then J6s can fare no worse than -2%
or so of a bet. Like a two cents at most in a $1-$2 game. Probably not even that much.
If you want to learn more about estimating the size of certain errors, you can read this thread from Matthew
Hilger's forum.
Ok... so if playing J6s is a tiny error, how big could playing T4s be in the same spot? Well, it's a bigger
error, but it's still small... maybe -5% of a bet. How about playing T4s from UTG? That surely must be a big
error. Well, it's bigger, but still it's probably no bigger than -15% of a bet.
So if playing all these weak hands is not a big error, then how come every beginner text emphasizes playing
tightly so much? Why do I have to fold 80% of my hands?
Frequency. Each loose call you make is a small error. But you get the OPPORTUNITY to make that error
on every hand. If you make the error a hundred times a session, a small error becomes a big leak.
On the other hand, if you never get the chance to make the error (e.g., folding the flopped straight flushes...
19
a HUGE error compared to the loose calls we examined... make sure you understand why it's a huge error),
then even a big error does not translate to a big leak.
So a leak can be big only if
1. The error is somewhat costly
2. You get the opportunity to make it a lot
In the loose calls example, each individual error is somewhat small, but you make it SO OFTEN that it turns
into a big leak.
Other examples of big leaks are folding too often in big pots (a HUGE error that you get to make with rare
to occasional frequency), or playing too passively in multiway pots (a substantial error that you get to make
frequently).
This morning, someone asked what to do with A2s after five people have folded from middle position.
Does it matter what you do?
Not really. Why? Because no matter what you choose to do, it could NEVER be a big leak. First, it's a
borderline situation. If it weren't, he wouldn't be asking about it. Sometimes it's right to call, sometimes
fold, and sometimes raise. It depends on the game.
But almost any time the correct answer "depends," they are all relatively close in value no matter the
situation. Now getting the "depends situations" correct IN GENERAL distinguishes experts from average
winners. That's because "depends situations" IN GENERAL occur relatively frequently. But any
INDIVIDUAL "depends situation" doesn't occur very often.
Also, getting the "depends situations" right should be the priority of an already solidly-winning player. So
many people ask trivial preflop questions while huge postflop leaks fester in their games.
So back to the A2s after five people fold question... if you make an error in that spot, it can't be a big one.
Now how often does it come up? Well, the situation isn't applicable just to A2s... obviously A4s would put
you in the same boat, as would 33 and possibly a hand like K7s. But 77 or A8s doesn't really put you in that
spot. So the range of "weird" hands in middle position after five people fold is maybe ten or twelve hands:
66-22, A7s-A2s, K8s-K7s... maybe one or two more.
How often are you dealt one of these borderline hands exactly four or five seats from the button and have
everyone fold to you? Once a week? Probably not even that often.
So he was asking about a situation where it doesn't really matter much what you do that arises only once
every week or so.
Put things into perspective. That's why my book hammers on the postflop stuff so much. Because THAT is
where people's big leaks are! That's where people are making LARGE mistakes OFTEN.
I gave a LOT of thought to which ideas I included and which ones I left out. Sometimes I intentionally left
out advice that would be helpful because I felt it would DISTRACT people from the much more important
stuff. So if I mention something like four times in the book, chances are it's important.
If I didn't mention something, or if I left it vague and didn't devote much space to it, chances are it's not
important. I am not perfect, so perhaps I missed an important point. But at least THINK about how
important what you are asking about is before you ask. Just doing that thinking will give you insight into the
game that knowing what to do with A2s after five folds could NEVER give you.
Ed Miller
20
People say all the time stuff like this (in posts):
Well, I know what I'm thinking about isn't that important. It's what I'm working on, though. I can get to the
more important stuff later.
Well, that's ok I guess... but say you were a quarterback on a football team. You said to your coach,
"I think we need to spend next practice working on the flea flicker."
Coach says,
"Well, we still don't have the timing right on our slant patterns. That's more important."
And you said to Coach,
"There's plenty of time for slant patterns later. Let's talk about the flea flicker now."
Think about what Coach would say to that idea...
SnakeRat
Flea-Flicker is the bread and butter play at MIT isn't it?
Gotta outsmart em cause you are too little and slow.
Good post Ed.
Ed Miller
The bread and butter play at MIT is the punt. A wobbly squib punt that goes about 15 yards. An MIT
signature.
At least we have hot cheerlea... oh... nevermind.
colgin
Ed,
Great post. I agree completely. I am about 2/3 of the way through your book and it is really excellent and
tremendously helpful. Thanks for writing it and continuing to contribute so much to this board.
One of the things I really like about the book is that it is organized around the really important things. There
is a tremendous amount of discussion on these boards about very marginal situations. That is all fine and
good, especially for those players who are already pretty solid winners and are trying to be expert.
However, for those who are not at that stage, identifying the big leaks is much more important. Your book
is helping me focus much more on things like "how to protect my hand in a big pot" (and for those who
don't already have the book there is really detailed discussion of this and related concepts) and not "could I
have squeezed one more big bet out of my monster hand".
All the best,
Colgin
P.S. In that regard, you will be happy to know that other than reading it through once, I have spent literally
no time studying your pre-flop charts. (Which is not to say that I disagree in any way with that advice; I
think it is spot on.)
sthief09
the biggest leak of most people who frequent these forums (myself included sometimes) is blindly leading
the advice of superior players, which leads to confusion in simple situations.
21
Instead of considering WHY you say to do certian things, many people just consider that you said to do it,
and store it. That's why we get those posts titled, "Ed Miller Told Me To" where someone does something
completely stupid, because he misunderstood you, or posts that say "Ed, you say to raise AJo in MP after 1
limper. What about after 2 limpers? What about in LMP?"
I know this is off-topic, but that's just how I feel.
joker122
I agree for the most part with your post. One thing I'm not sure about is you assertion that misplaying
overcards (you listed AK specifically, but we could be talking about any 2 big cards such as AQ, AJ, KQ
etc.) can't be a big leak. You will miss the flop 66% of the time with these hands. Isn't 66% frequent enough
to become a big leak?
I forget who it was but maybe a month ago someone posted a typical AK hand that missed the flop. He
prefaced his post with a confession that he was an overall loser with AKo and AKs after a substantial
number of hands in his PT database. AKs and AKo are my 3rd and 5th winningest hands in terms of
BB/Hand. Now, he was in the negative with each of them. If that's not a leak I don't know what is.
joker122
OK, but Big Endian was just one example. My point is that big cards still miss 2/3 of the time which I think
is frequent enough to qualify as a big leak.
Ed Miller
OK, but Big Endian was just one example. My point is that big cards still miss 2/3 of the time which I think
is frequent enough to qualify as a big leak.
I'll grant you medium leak. But people overestimate the size of that particular leak because of the nature of
overcards.
They are a high variance proposition even when played correctly. Most of the time you play your overcards,
you will end up losing an extra bet or two. Occasionally you pick up a pot by playing them correctly. So
after people lose ten overcard hands in a row, they sometimes tend to say, "I'm just throwing my money
away on these damn overcards." That thought gets people to, "Maybe I shouldn't raise preflop in the first
place so I wouldn't feel so tied to them after the flop. Then I could just fold correctly like I want to."
To some extent, they are like 16 against a 10 in blackjack. People wrack their brains about how to play that
situation... and the reality is that it doesn't much matter what they do. Hitting and standing are pretty close.
The reason they think so hard is because no matter what they do IT'S GONNA TURN OUT BADLY.
There's no way to turn 16 against a 10 into a rosy situation.
Same thing with overcards. Generally with ace-king, you will have raised preflop so the pot is usually big
enough to take one off on the flop. But people think it's such a tough decision because no matter what you
do, it's not gonna be pretty. You went from excellent starting hand to very marginal situation in two
seconds.
You are usually gonna lose when you flop overcards. That causes people psychologically to draw the
mistaken conclusion that their play of overcards is a much bigger money loser than it probably actually is on
average.
EDIT: Oh, and by the way. NO ONE plays ace-king, suited or offsuit, poorly enough to turn it into a net
long-term money loser. No one. The hand is too good.
BigEndian
Just ordered your book today, looking forward to it.
I think your post is missing something though: a leak is only big if it's a significant money loser with
regularity against your opposition. You play in relation to your opponents is what makes money, not your
22
play unto itself.
In low limit games, where there are frequently players so bad they can be 5-10BB/hour losers. This
provides awesome overlay and cushions your mistakes in a way that can stifle learning.
I think what's lost most often is simply the understanding that, in these games, you don't have to play rocketscience poker - or even firecracker-science poker. Over thinking costs you money more often than not
because it can lead to that fatal mistake of laying a hand down in a huge pot. All those well laid plans and
hard thought plays that might gain a fraction of a bet once every month can lead to mistakes that loose you
10-20BB pots once a week.
About the AKo, AKs thing that was brought up. It was AKs that was the loser, AKo was the winner. And I
didn't have near as many hands in my DB as I thought I did - a complete brain lock after having not played
in a while.
I did however have a very bad habit of playing my AKs like a made hand. Problem "fixed".
StellarWind
Excellent post. We do spend too much time on the same old preflop subjects that barely matter. Any regular
on this forum could assemble a top-10 list.
There is a third dimension to the leaks question, in addition to cost and frequency: effort. How much work
is it to fix the leak? Example:
Leak 1: I used to coldcall AJo from LP versus an EP PFR. That leak was fixed the same day I realized it
was wrong. I'm not sure how exactly serious that leak was, but fixing it was time well-spent because so little
effort was required.
Leak 2: When someone raises my river bet, I automatically crying call without thinking. This is a
moderately costly mistake that occurs with moderate frequency. Certainly it costs me more than my
occasional AJo mistake. The effort for me to fix this is very large. It's been an identified problem for two
months and it's still leaking.
That's why I am happy to read occasional threads about novel or little-discussed preflop situations. If I learn
one good idea it's worth a few minutes on my time, even if it doesn't come up very often.
"So I 3-bet to find out where I stood..."
Ed Miller
How many of you have said this recently? Raise your hand...
I think it is basically always wrong to 3-bet for the purpose of "finding out where I'm at." There are two
reasons:
The information is unreliable
So you are looking to see if your opponent just calls your 3-bet, or if he 4-bets. Let's examine what each
reaction could mean.
Calls the 3-bet:

Because he's waiting for the turn to raise again with a big hand

Because you've scared a timid player into calling you down with a better hand
23

Because it confirms that your opponent was screwing around with a weak hand or a draw
4-bets you:

Because he has a big hand

Because he has a big draw and wants to semi-bluff you and/or try for a free card

Because he likes to say "Cappuccino!"

Because he's overplaying a weak hand

Because he 3-bet you preflop with K4s, missed the flop, and now has to play it like the nuts to
have any hope of winning
No matter how your opponent reacts, you STILL don't know if you are ahead or behind. What good is
"finding out where you're at" if you don't find out where you're at?
You bloat the pot
The second problem is that you make the pot really big. By the time you get 4-bet, the pot often becomes
too big to fold! So, you either fold too much when the pot is big (does that ring any bells?), or you don't use
the "cheap" information that you got.
In poker, we should play tighter when the pot is small and looser when the pot is big. When you raise for
information, you are planning to fold if the pot gets bigger.
Having said all that, it might be right to raise for information against a particularly PREDICTABLE player.
If his reaction to the 4-bet RELIABLY tells you about his hand, then it may be worth it. Online, this is
almost never the case. (1) You see new players every half hour, and (2) many people play like total maniac
goofballs online. 3-betting with the intent to fold to a 4-bet (or call the 4-bet and fold on the turn) against
these goons is a TERRIBLE play.
Also, it's ok to call down, guys. You aren't a "horrible calling station" if you call down with a hand you
aren't sure is best (but is too good to fold because of the size of the pot). This is especially true if the pot is
already heads-up or three-handed. It is no longer so important to protect your hand with a raise... so you can
often start calling down.
Raising on the flop is almost never a "cheap" way to get information that will "save you money" on later
streets. The information is far too unreliable. "Cheap" often means paying four bets to see a turn card that
should have only cost one or two. "Saving you money" often ends up meaning making bad folds in big pots.
Break the habit...
MaxPower
Good post. I hope this isn't in response to the AK hand below where I suggested raising the turn. I wasn't
suggesting raising for information.
24
Raising on the flop is almost never a "cheap" way to get information that will "save you money" on later
streets. The information is far too unreliable. "Cheap" often means paying four bets to see a turn card that
should have only cost one or two. "Saving you money" often ends up meaning making bad folds in big pots.
I remember a thread a while back where someone suggested raising on the flop for information in a
multiway pot. I couldn't see how you could get any reliable information by doing that.
There is a thing called diasnosticity of information. When you raise a predictable player the information you
get is diagnostic. You can be sure what his reaction represents. Most players call too much and don't raise
enough so you don't really get diagnostic information when you raise.
I also think it is funny when I see players call on the river "for information". They are paying for
information that they can easily get for free.
Vehn
You should rarely be calling down with position. You need to use your position to find out where you are
and to charge potential draws and to take free showdowns.
Example: You have QQ on the button and raise one early limper. The big blind, a seemingly sane player,
calls. Flop is K T 8 with 2 spades. You bet and are checkraised by the big blind and the limper folds.
Calling that and the turn and river is bad. The standard play is to pop him on the turn and usually take the
free showdown. He could easily have a hand like AT or a multitude of draws that you need to charge him
for and obviously you can release to further aggression. Why else is position so "powerful" as quoted by the
pundits?
Calling down out of position is usually fine though.
Basically its just a question of knowing how sane your opponents are. But I pretty much agree that for the
most part the "trend" of the LL players on this board put in too much action on the flop and not enough later
streets especially heads up.
Ed Miller
You should rarely be calling down with position. You need to use your position to find out where you are
and to charge potential draws and to take free showdowns.
Example: You have QQ on the button and raise one early limper. The big blind, a seemingly sane player,
calls. Flop is K T 8 with 2 spades. You bet and are checkraised by the big blind and the limper folds.
Calling that and the turn and river is bad. The standard play is to pop him on the turn and usually take the
free showdown. He could easily have a hand like AT or a multitude of draws that you need to charge him
for and obviously you can release to further aggression. Why else is position so "powerful" as quoted by
the pundits?
I agree with your example (I'd usually raise the turn also in that spot). I wouldn't call it "raising for
information." You are raising to protect your hand... to get your opponent to fold a hand that has outs to
beat you (or at least to put in two bets with that draw instead of one).
You are implicitly counting on the information of being 3-bet (or bet into on the river) to be reliable. If you
can't count on that, then calling is often better.
When I said, "it's ok to call down," I meant, "don't put in five bets on the flop and fold to a six-bet because
you think that by calling on the turn and river you become a calling station."
Vehn
If I raise the turn with position specifically with a hand that I intend to check the river with, I do it with the
knowledge that I simply cannot call a turn 3-bet. If my opponent 3-bets me with a worse hand then I was
25
outplayed - so be it. I also immediately take him off the "sane" list . But the real thing to consider (and I
can't believe you didn't stress it you sklanskymunchkin) is that you need to do this only when you have no
outs. Basically hold'em really does boil down to "check(call) with outs, bet(raise) with no outs". In my
example if the turn was a 9 (or you had AT to begin with) it would probably be a mistake to raise the turn
unless you have a real read on your opponent.
Ed Miller
But the real thing to consider (and I can't believe you didn't stress it you sklanskymunchkin) is that you
need to do this only when you have no outs. Basically hold'em really does boil down to "check(call) with
outs, bet(raise) with no outs".
Fair enough.
MarkD
Also, it's ok to call down, guys. You aren't a "horrible calling station" if you call down with a hand you
aren't sure is best (but is too good to fold because of the size of the pot). This is especially true if the pot is
already heads-up or three-handed. It is no longer so important to protect your hand with a raise... so you
can often start calling down.
I haven't read any responses yet but this is important.
It’s INCREDIBLY important. Really, calling down is fine guys. Not everything is a raise or fold situation.
Try hard to think about all 3 options when you are bet into, and figure out which has the highest EV. –
mmbt0ne
Common Party $3-$6 Situation
Ed Miller
I want to make sure you guys are handling this spot correctly. It has already come up several times for me.
You open-raise from MP with Q
The flop is K
2
2
Q
. Only the BB calls.
. The BB bets. What do you do?
26
exist
raising is wrong because if he is bluffing you make him stop.
folding is wrong because you are too likely to be ahead.
calling is correct because you have a fairly strong hand not too vulnerable to overcards and a board that
your opponent might find enticing to bluff at (he could also be betting a hand like 88).
MicroBob
I'm torn between
- just calling and then betting if they check the turn
- raising right now
I think raising NOW is best
But there is also an argument for just calling.
Here it is:
I think that just calling tells the BB:
- that you have a K (AK or QK most likely) but might be afraid that he has a 2
- that you are willing to call him down with your K
Also - since he bet at it I am going to guess that he does NOT have a 2 (because he more likely would have
checked if he had trips).
Since I can guess that he does NOT have a 2 that increases my chances of having the best hand and he is
probably drawing pretty thin.
Also - he is guessing that I don't have a 2 because I raised.
I think his bet is just trying to represent his own K to see if I really have one (a 'feeler' type bet that Ed
referred to yesterday).
(Maybe I'm giving the BB too much credit to actually think about it this much.....but I think some of these
thoughts come to him instinctively).
House-Lion
I think we want a SD here.
As already pointed out this could be a bluff or semi-bluff (holding a smaller pocket-pair)
Either we are ahead or hopelessly behind.
Cheapest road to SD including checking the river if op check it since that could mean either bluff or a K
with poor kicker.
I like the option of raising the flop and check on the turn then call the river.
Trix
Call, check if he checks turn, call or bet river.
AceHigh
call on the flop and raise on the turn.
Trix
I put him on a strong hand or a weak hand. Why raise the turn ?
Bez
Surely if you just call, check, call Trix, that's classic calling station play?
27
Trix
that's classic calling station play?
It sure is. What´s your point ?
Michael Davis
What about call, call, call? In shorthanded pots, there are lots of players who taking this strategy is the best
option. Who cares if calling stations also do it? They're doing with unimproved JT, and you're doing it with
a hand that can beat a bluff.
Trix
I dont want him check-folding or check-raising the turn and I think checking behind will make him spend
another bet on the river often.
You could be right about him check-calling to induce a bluff and not getting raised with a low pocket pair.
Probably player dependant.
Bez
If you raise you're gonna have a better idea of where you're at rather than paying him off everytime he has
the K. I'm not claiming to be an expert, just thought this kind of play was to be avoided unless aginst a
maniac.
Trix
He will also have a better idea that he is beat if he has a weak hand.
Rudbaeck
I'm with Trix.
We're taking this to SD. So if we are ahead then checking behind on the turn will induce a bluff on the river.
If we are behind then checking behind lowers our loss by one bb.
We win one extra bb when ahead, and lose one less bb when behind. What's not to like?
Michael Davis
Because you are forgetting the times that your opponent will pay you off twice with a pocket pair or ace
high. When he checks to you on the turn, he is announcing that he doesn't have top pair. If he does and
decides to check it, hey, you got screwed. You also avoid giving him a free card on the turn when he does
have outs to beat you. Checking behind on the turn is awful against a player who, say, will not bluff bet the
river with ace high but will never pay off either.
There is no reason to take this to showdown every time. If you are checkraised on the turn, you can fold.
BigEndian
Call, call, and bet the river if checked to you. This is a bet that can be made with a) a hand with a K, b) a
mid-small pocket pair or c) someone with a hair up their ass. Most of the time, it's a) or b) - pretty much
50/50 in my book. Add in the uncommon c) and there's no way you can fold here without a read.
AceHigh
Why raise the turn ?
Because he might fold a weak King. Costs the same as calling down.
cnfuzzd
any opponent who is willing to call your preflop raise with a weak king, and bet into the preflop raiser with
a weak king is probably not going to fold.
I will chime in that calling the flop is the best idea, although i would be doing so knowing that im going to
28
go runner runner quads because God is desperatly trying to prove his existence to me.
peace
john nickle
AceHigh
and bet into the preflop raiser with a weak king is probably not going to fold.
I agree, they will call more often with a King, than they will fold. But wouldn't you raise the turn with AK
or AA?
cnfuzzd
yes i would raise the turn with either of those hands, and also JJ, TT, and maybe AQ. I would think i have
the best hand with any of those, the possible exception being AQ, assuming the blind might have a small
pair. JMO
peace
john nickle
Blarg
You're getting 5 1/2 to 1 to call. If the other two queens are your only outs, you need 23 to 1 to call.
What I notice at Party is that the big blind at least 90% of the time will call with anything at all. So a 2 is
really not much less likely than any other holding, and a king is slightly more likely from any caller just
because it's a king, but not decisively so when coming from the big blind. We're not necessarily looking at
someone who called because he liked his hand or because his hand was very coordinated. We're likely
calling someone who just "protects his bet" automatically unless he has something remarkably terrible like
the proverbial 72 offsuit. And even then he might call. So basically his call means almost nothing and he
could have anything.
Still, this is an intimidating board for most people, as your preflop raise could have signaled an ace or a
king, which would mean the flop gave you top pair plus probably a nice kicker. In which case unless BB
had a deuce or a king with a strong kicker, it's bad news for the BB and he knows he's probably behind.
Betting out into a preflop raiser with that flop means either he thinks you will fold a hand with a King in it,
which doesn't make a lot of sense, or that he has a hand with a king or a deuce in it himself, IF he's not
bluffing.
BB didn't re-raise preflop, so if he has a good hand, he probably made it on the flop with either that King or
the deuces, in which case you're far behind. It's not likely he has JJ, QQ, KK, AA, AK or AKs, TT, or the
like, at least.
So he probably has either a King with what he thinks is a better kicker than the king you might have(or
sufficient by itself) or trip deuces to beat you soundly; a low or middle pair trying to make you pay to draw
out against him if you raised with just two high or two suited cards, or fold outright; or is on a bluff with
anything to nothing at all.
I think you're looking for a concrete answer to a question with important variables. I'm sure you'll disagree,
but at this point I would like a solid read of the guy before I took up what might be only 23 to 1 odds for a 5
1/2 to 1 pay-off. This hand played to the river will cost 2 1/2 big bets.
The best way I can think of to get more information is to raise.
bdk3clash
This hand has way too much showdown value to muck for one bet at any point, I think. There's nothing
wrong with deciding that you're going to see a showdown a few streets ahead and planning accordingly.
29
I'd just call the flop bet. I'd make sure I put in one bet on the turn and river, but not two. The only way I'm
not seeing a river is if I get checkraised on the turn, and the only way I'm not seeing a showdown once I
make it to the river is if my opponent is crafty enough to checkraise there. I'd tip my hat to him for a hand
well played, or a bluff well-run (albeit an expensive and improbable one.)
Ed Miller
I called the flop bet. The turn was the J
, so the board is K
2
2
J
.
He bet, I called.
The river was the 5
.
He bet, I called.
He showed A
6
, and I won.
Two things:
1. I think calling is CLEARLY the best play on the flop.
Folding is way too weak... especially on Party, the BB will bet a flop like this with all sorts of hands. Naked
aces, small pocket pairs, or even weaker hands. He might of course bet with a king or a deuce, but he often
checks those hands. Your effective odds to the river are 4.5-to-2.5, so you need to win about 35-40% of the
time to show a profit. You have the best hand here far more often than that... as much as 70-80% of the time
I'd guess. Since this is a "way ahead or way behind" situation, you will also finish with the best hand about
that often.
Raising is counter-productive. It tends to slow down a bluffer, and it just causes you to go off for two extra
bets against a real hand. Even if you get 3-bet, you can't fold, which brings me to...
2. No folding!
Any of you that included the word "fold" as any part of your answer... raising the turn and folding to a 3bet... betting and folding to a check-raise, etc., I think you are wrong.
I played a similar situation the day before, but (for various reasons) I decided to raise the turn instead of just
call. My opponent 3-bet me.... with AJ, no pair, no draw. This is not an isolated occurrence.
You have to be REALLY careful about folding in these spots... especially on Party. In fact, if you suggested
raising and folding to a 3-bet, you are almost certainly getting bluffed out of hands needlessly.
StellarWind
Thanks for another great post.
I thought the most difficult aspect of this hand is what to do after you call and he checks a turn blank. There
seem to be two theories:
1. Bet the turn and the river. Don't give free cards to AJ or 88.
2. Check the turn and call the river. You lose 2 BB if you walk into a checkraise from a better hand and 1
BB if you bet his pair of kings for him.
How you would approach this decision?
Ed Miller
How you would approach this decision?
30
He likely has no more than three outs if behind, and the pot is relatively small, so I'm not worried about
betting to protect my hand.
Therefore once he checks the turn, my goal will be to get as many bets out of him as possible. If I think he'll
fold to the turn bet, I'll check. If I think he'll call it, I'll bet.
You should also be more willing to check against someone who would bet the flop, but go for a checkraise
on the turn. Most people never make that play, but if your opponent does, that's reason to consider
checking.
Big pot! Big mistake?
Ed Miller
10-20 at Muckleshoot. I have the K K in MP. Two EP and an MP limper to me. I raise. Button (a
conservative player) calls. The big blind calls, as do the EP limpers. The MP player now 3-bets. I cap. All
call. 6-handed to the flop for 24 SB.
Flop is 6
5
2
. Checked to me and I check. Button checks.
Turn is the Q
folds. I call.
. Checked to me and I bet. Button raises. BB and first EP fold. Second EP calls and MP
River is the 4
. MP checks, I bet, button and MP both call.
gonores
31
On the flop, what do you think the chances are for a conservative player to bet out into a pre-flop capper,
unless he flopped a set? If he is conservative, then he might bet out with something like 77-TT, but if he is
willing to do that, I think he would be willing to raise your bet (which would be fantastic for you). If this
were a 30-60 or something like that, I think you could make an argument for waiting for the turn for pot
manipulation purposes (especially if you could foresee the button raising you on the turn), but even that
argument has many weaknesses.
On the turn, what do you put the button on? I've got him narrowed down to almost exclusively AQ. EP
appears to have picked up a heart draw. Both these players need charging. I think you lost 2BB on the turn.
Doug
Ed Miller
On the turn, what do you put the button on? I've got him narrowed down to almost exclusively AQ. EP
appears to have picked up a heart draw. Both these players need charging. I think you lost 2BB on the
turn.
I think you might be on to something..
Lost Wages
OK, I'll stick my neck out and ask the obvious. Why didn't you bet the flop?
Dingo Dan
Total beginner here so take this with a pinch of salt but I dont think the button could have a two pair or set
and then let it check through,isn't this what Slansky says is a mathematical catastrophe letting people get a
card for free and outdraw you when they would have folded a bet,and also if they would have called you
anyway and then proceed not to outdraw you?
although this is what you have done by not betting.I am also wondering why you checked the flop what am i
missing? Would you have checked with TT or JJ?
Ed Miller
Read the section beginning on p.170 of HPFAP entitled "Another Example." You can also skip back a
section or two to get some context.
Whether this was an appropriate application of that concept, or whether the concept has merit at all or not is
debatable. But for those unfamiliar with the concept, please read that section of HPFAP.
Homer
Everything seems fine except for your lack of a three-bet on the turn. Why no three-bet?
GuyOnTilt
Preflop: Textbook.
Flop: Textbook.
Turn: Not so textbook. You should've 3-bet here and I'm not really sure why you didn't. You can peg the
button on AQ here and the EP player either picked up a flush draw or has a medium pocket pair that he's
calling all the way with. This is a definitely reraise.
River: Textbook.
One street misplayed left you without 2 big bets that would've otherwise been yours.
GuyOnTilt
Would you have checked with TT or JJ?
32
No, he wouldn't have checked the flop with JJ or TT. His hand would've been too vulnerable to overcards.
With AA or KK though, checking a flop like this from LP can be to your advantage.
Ed Miller
Everything seems fine except for your lack of a three-bet on the turn. Why no three-bet?
Because I'm a freakshow. I knew button had AQ at the time, and I just didn't 3-bet. This may sound very
strange to an online player, but I have very little experience 3-betting the turn with a one-pair hand. That is
because very few people raise one-pair hands for value in a live game (at least in my games)... so generally
they are either bluffing or have you beat. Of course this hand is very different, and I made a big mistake.
JTG51
This may sound very strange to an online player, but I have very little experience 3-betting the turn with a
one-pair hand.
This is an important point, one that I've had to get used to since I've been playing online more. I had a
conversation recently about this with a very good player that has played many, many hours of 10/20 at
Foxwoods. I asked him when the last time was that he saw a player (other than me) in that game raise the
turn with one pair (without a flush or straight draw to go with it). He though for a minute and said, "I'm not
sure I ever have." I agreed with him.
The games are different enough that I will very rarely 3-bet the turn with 'just' AA at Foxwoods, but
routinely do online. I don't know if the games you play in are as passive as the games at Foxwoods, but it
sounds like they aren't far from it.
gonores
1. You can't guarantee a bet from your right on the turn. If it is checked to you again (which may happen a
lot), you'll have to bet the turn, and at that point you'll be offering 12:1 or better to see the river. That is still
plenty of overlay on any gutshot, etc.
2. You can't guarantee folds. I'd imagine you had plenty of people at this table who would make calls with
improper odds anyways. Many will call to the river with this big of a pot, so you may as well charge them a
lot to get there.
3. A bet on the flop knocks out the overcards. In Sklansky's example, there are no overcards to fear (you're
holding a pair of aces in each case). Knocking out weak aces is important here.
Why I like the check on the flop
1. You disguise your hand so that you can 3-bet the button when he raises his AQ after the Q hits the
turn....wait, you didn't do that
I think you need to use your own recipe for success here. Bet your good hands.
I'm not huge on this concept in the first place, and it's probably worse live...when all your opponent's see is
a huge pile of chips and glimmer of hope. I don't think this is a place to get tricky.
Doug
slider77
My question is why did you not bet the flop with KK?? Make people pay or see if anyone has AA.
Guido
Same question. With five opponents why is it textbook to check the flop? When you have AA I could
understand a check but not with KK. Why shouldn't you let them pay to catch an A? Why not bet out on the
33
flop and do a check-raise on the turn (or just bet out on the turn)? Please tell me why.
GuyOnTilt
The idea is to keep people in the hand. Nobody has a piece of that flop, so our hero checks through on the
flop in hopes that someone will catch a piece of the turn. The only card he doesn't want to see is any of the 3
aces. Most hands would fold on the flop if he bet out.
Also, hands that DO catch a piece of the turn may even raise him if he bets out so that he can promptly 3bet them.
gonores
I respectfully disagree, Mr. Tilt. At this point, with this flop, the pot is huge and your only goal is to get the
pot shipped to you.
Guido
I also disagree. When 6 people call 4 SB preflop, would they fold on a flop like that with that much in the
pot? I don't think so. I would just want to win the pot with that many players. And so what if 1 or 2 fold
after the flop? A lot of people will go to the river with a pot like that. I just don't like slowplaying with that
many players and not an extreemly good hand. I could sandbag the turn when the Q hit but I would
probably bet out and 3-bet a raise.
slavic
MK Why not 3 bet on the turn? Your conservative player has to be worried about AK or he would have 3 bet
you on the flop. If he had AA with that many limpers he'd be foolish not to three bet you and give the
limpers a chance to fold. So his play puts him on QQ, JJ (I still think he three bets these) or AQ. 3 Bet him.
A smaller set 4 bets and I think you have a safe release. He's also likely to semibluff an 87 or heart draw but
that wouldn't be very Muckleshoot like.
GuyOnTilt
You're right, my post was flawed. I looked back at my post and realized I didn't mention one of the main
reasons for waiting till the turn to bet/raise: To limit the field.
As it was already pointed out, this pot is huge. And as others have said, a lot of hands will call you on the
flop because of this. On the turn, this means that they will again be getting their odds to call to the river
because of all the extra money going into the pot on the flop. So his opponents would be correct in calling
on the flop and turn and get to see all five cards.
But if you check through on the flop and then bet/raise the turn, many hands that would've called the flop
and consequently your turn bet, won't be able to call to see the river. You may get sucked out on the turn,
but you were going to anyways even if you had bet the flop. By checking it through, you allow yourself to
manipulate the pot and make it so a number of your opponents won't have a chance to see the river card.
So in actuality, checking it through DOES increase your chance of winning the pot.
Homer
This post is turning into a rehash of the hand I posted a few weeks ago, in which I raised (or was it threebet?) preflop with KK, then checked behind on the flop. However, Majorkong's play is more likely to be
correct than was mine because:
- The board is more drawy
- The pot is larger
- The player directly to MK's right three-bet preflop, so he is likely to be the one to bet the turn
34
For those of you scratching your head at why MK checked the flop, check out the loose games section of
HPFAP.
-- Homer
lockitup
No one will fold on this flop. But they will fold on the turn. That's the idea.
A check on the flop will induce a bet from a weaker hand on the turn. A raise will then drive out hands that
may yet pose a danger.
This concept has nothing to do with slowplaying in the traditional sense. You're not trying to keep people
around, you're waiting for a better spot to knock them out.
Not raising on the turn when given this opportunity makes the application of this strategy on the flop
completely useless.
But he knows that.
gonores
Plenty of people fold on the flop here, including people that you want knocked out, like A9 and AT. Almost
any player with two cards above a 9 are going to fold here (other than pocket pairs or AK). Sure, you may
be setting up decent odds for 33 or A4 to call on the turn, but no one says that they would fold on the turn
anyways.
A check on the flop will induce a bet from a weaker hand on the turn. A raise will then drive out hands that
may yet pose a danger.
I doubt anyone will bet out into 5 opponents (including a preflop capper and a limp-re-raiser) unless they
improve on the turn or were planning a flop c/r.
Ed Miller
Not raising on the turn when given this opportunity makes the application of this strategy on the flop
completely useless.
But he knows that.
I disagree with that completely. My strategy actually worked to a T (though it went a little backwards...
someone was supposed to bet into me and I was supposed to raise, but oh well). The BB complained for the
next three hands that he would have made the best hand on the river card and that he only folded because it
was two bets to him. Once I bet and the button raised, the play's purpose was accomplished. Not 3-betting
was still an error, but not because 3-betting was going to prevent anyone from seeing the river.
Ed Miller
Ok. Here's the point. No one with an Ace is going to fold for one bet on this flop. So if an Ace is coming on
the turn, I'm doomed and there's not a damn thing I can do about it. In addition, no one with a 4 or 5 or
flopped pair is going to fold for one bet on the flop. So if the straight comes on the turn, I'm similarly
doomed.
So I just have to pray for a blank on the turn. Betting the flop does build the pot with me as a favorite, but it
doesn't protect my hand one bit.
So I check the flop, hoping that people put me on AK. My hope is that someone with a 6, a medium pocket
pair, or who pairs on the turn will bet into me so I can raise and face the rest of the field with calling two
bets cold on the turn. Hopefully that will be enough leverage to get rid of some of the aces, fours, fives, and
flopped pairs.
35
When the queen hit, I thought that was a perfect card. Someone with a queen will actually think they have
the best hand here and bet. But again the check to me. This is a blessing and a curse... it's a blessing because
it means that no one has anything at this point, but it's a curse because I can't raise as intended. So I bet, and
the button (the conservative player) raises. She can have only one hand... AQ. Perfect! Everybody folds
except for one guy... Perfect! I just call the raise... huh? I was thinking 3-bet 3-bet 3-bet and only four chips
came out. That sort of thing still happens to me at the poker table occasionally (for those that remember my
hand where I 3-bet the river knowing full well I was beat). I don't know how to go about fixing that... maybe
I should visit the Psychology forum.
Anyways, I clearly should have 3-bet the turn, and it isn't close. Once the EP limper (never one to
checkraise) checked to me on the river, I of course knew my hand was best and bet. The button did indeed
have AQ and EP called and mucked when I showed the Kings.
AQ complained about how she thought I had AK and thought she had the best hand on the turn (if she
suspected I had AA or KK, she would not have raised the turn). So if I had bet the flop, and bet the turn, I
would have lost the hand, because the BB would have beaten me on the river (as I heard about for the next
three hands).
slavic
AQ complained about how she thought I had AK and thought she had the best hand on the turn (if she
suspected I had AA or KK, she would not have raised the turn). So if I had bet the flop, and bet the turn, I
would have lost the hand, because the BB would have beaten me on the river (as I heard about for the next
three hands).
Nice hand, $40 light but nice hand.
I assume this was the main game. For some reason the darn must move table always seem to be tighter than
a well diggers @**. What is up with that?
How many times did I wimp out? (River Raising)
colehard
Finally signed up with a PP site. Wow it's different from Royal Vegas or Pacific but PokerTracker is
fantastic....
Anyway, thoughts on the following are appreciated:
0.50/1
I have K , Q MP2
UTG calls, UTG + 1, MP1 poster checks, I limp (I want many callers?), CO limps, button folds, SB
completes, BB checks
Flop 4 , J , Q
SB, BB check, UTG bets, UTG +1 call, MP1 fold, I raise, CO calls, SB calls, BB folds, UTGs both call
36
Turn 4
UTG bets , UTG+1 and MP1 Fold, I call (weak?), CO calls
River4
UTG bets, I call, CO calls
bisonbison
I'd raise this preflop, it plays well against many and it plays well against few. With 3 limpers ahead of you,
you're probably going to qualify for many.
I'd raise it on the flop too, so no wimp out there. You've got top pair and a back door flush draw.
I'd call the turn when he bets into you after the raise since your flush draw is gone.
I'd raise the river, since it's not clear that the CO will call 1 behind.
eh923
I think that you only wimped out three times.
PF (1st wimp-out) - Raise this. It works well short-handed as well as against many.
Flop - Good raise. You're probably best, and you have a draw as well.
Turn (2nd wimp-out) - Raise! You're probably up against AJ, KJ, or KQ. Maybe even a flush draw. If you
get raised back...you might find you're against JQ. A 4 is very doubtful, but you can at least check-fold the
river if you're positive you're toast.
River (3rd wimp-out) - Screw the check-fold...I'd raise this too! Other than a 4, or a pocket pair JJ or higher
(all very unlikely), you're no worse than a split. You could even bounce an idiot w/ a Q and a bad kicker
(don't laugh...I've seen it happen!).
bunky9590
Let me see,
Raise preflop, (didn't do)
Raise on the flop (you get the gold star for that one)
Raise the turn (once again seeing monsters under the bed)
Raise the river (need to change the wardrobe to a miniskirt and high heels for not raising that river)
But other than that you did okay.
Ed Miller
Raise the river (need to change the wardrobe to a miniskirt and high heels for not raising that river)
Why should he raise the river?
bunky9590
Major,
Now I know we disagree on a lot of issues but I figured this was a no brainer. You think he has the case 4?
(he would have probably checkraised that) think he has JJ or QQ for that matter? Think he has AA or KK?
I raise the river here for value if nothing else. How many worse hands here do you know that will call at low
and micro limit? Quite a few.
37
BTW, our hero showed no strength on the turn so he figures that his hand may be good with that J or
something like that. At worst he's probably a split.
Ed Miller
I didn't say he didn't probably have the best hand... he does.
But having the best hand is NOT a reason to bet or raise the river. These are things you should think about
when you decide how to play the river:
1. How likely am I to have the best hand?
2. Are there players yet to act behind me?
3. Can I get a better hand behind me to fold for a raise?
4. How likely am I to have the bettor beaten?
5. If I have the bettor beaten, will he call if I raise?
6. What do I do if I get reraised?
Here are how I answer those questions on this hand:
1. I probably have the best hand, but I could easily be chopping
2. There is one player yet to act behind me
3. No one will fold a better hand than mine if I raise
4. I'm reasonably likely to have the bettor beaten, but we could easily be chopping, and there is some
chance he has me beaten
5. He will probably call if I raise, even if he's beaten
6. If I get reraised, I mess myself
I think just calling, going for the overcall from the CO is the superior river play. There are two reasons...
one, while the bettor probably doesn't have you beaten, he will have you chopping often. Also, there is no
way you can get a better hand to fold.. even a chopping hand. So just calling makes it more likely that if you
are chopping with the bettor, that you will have some river money to chop.
You should often be looking for opportunities to go for overcalls on the river in these microlimit games...
people haven't figured out that you need a strong hand to overcall, so the overcalls are often extra dead
money with no risk.
BTW, I think this is a reasonably close decision. If there were two opponents behind, I think calling for
overcalls is clearly right. If this hand were heads-up, I'd obviously advocate raising. I only said something
because it seemed you hadn't even considered calling for overcalls.
bunky9590
I agree that if there are 2 players behind me the overcall will CLEARLY get the most money with limited
risk.
I just think with one person behind and he will either fold or call two cold and original bettor will definitely
make the crying call. Its a wash both ways.
Except for the fact at these micro games almost anybody with a small PP will call down the river even
though its hopeless.
38
Preflop Play: Take off the training wheels
Ed Miller
This is a post targetted to the posters who have been around for at least a few months. If you are brand new
to poker, ignore this for now (but bookmark it and come back in two months).
How many of you still ask preflop questions like,
"How many limpers do I need to play..."
"Do I have the odds to call with..."
etc.
How many of you give preflop advice like,
"Without at least three limpers you have to muck..."
"You are getting 7-to-1 so you should..."
If you still think this way about preflop play, it's time to take the training wheels off!
39
Preflop play is NOT about "pot odds." It is not about how many limpers you have. Preflop play is about
getting to see flops against players who will give you their money by playing poorly.
The goal of preflop play is to maximize your time spent playing after the flop against weak players
and weak hands and minimize it against strong players and strong hands.
You make money in poker from your play after the flop. You've already noticed how poorly many of these
players play after the flop. They put in tons of bets as huge underdogs. They don't put in enough bets as the
favorite. They hemorrhage money after the flop.
When bad players limp in front of you, you should want to play with them. Say you have a hand like K4s,
and two bad players limp in. You should WANT to play. Your hand has no advantage over theirs at this
point. But after the flop, you will make good decisions, and they will make terrible ones. Your hand isn't
good, but it is good enough.
Now you may decide not to play K4s even though you WANT to play. You might not play because you are
in middle position, and the chance someone will pick up a big hand behind you is too high. You might not
play because there are strong players behind you who can really interfere with your goal of playing against
weak players and weak hands. But you should WANT to play. If you are on the button, then you SHOULD
play because there's no one behind you to screw with your plans.
When it is raised in front of you (by a normal raiser) you should want to fold K4s. You are playing against a
strong hand, and you want to minimize your exposure against strong hands.
If two strong, tricky players enter the pot in front of you, you DON'T WANT to play K4s. You want to
minimize your exposure against good players.
You can play quite loose if you are sure you will only be playing against bad players and bad hands. Your
superior skills after the flop can turn very marginal hands into solid winners.
balkii
Great post, major. One thing I think you forgot to mention was "Forget about which 'group' your hand is
in." I fortunately didnt read HPFAP until after I had being playing a while, so I never memorized hand
groupings or anything. I think this has helped me to see each hand for its unique value in each situation.
MarkD
Excellent, although I don't totally agree. There are times when you want to consider the number of limpers,
but this is covered by your caveat paragraph near the bottom. Put that whole paragraph in bold as it
illustrates the thought process that a players needs to go through.
The paragraph I mean is the one that starts: "Now you may decide not to play K4s even though you WANT
to play."
Ed Miller
You are right, there are times when how many people are in the pot matters. I obviously oversimplified
preflop play just a wee bit.
I just wanted to expose some people to a preflop paradigm they obviously aren't familiar with. BTW, I think
my paradigm is more useful and "correct" than the pot odds paradigm under typical circumstances.
BottlesOf
I really like this post, and I think this paradigm is a great approach, however... I think the advice is also a
little dangerous. It begins to sound like, disregard probability, mathematics, science, whatever and "play
your instincts," assuming you're against weaker opponents.
40
This new paradigm may be great for players with a lot of experience, but I feel like what "the book says" is
an important foundation (maybe even more than a mere foundation) for most players.
I have played this game seriously for 5 months, and I have made what I consider a lot of money, considering
what I started with. However, I do not think I have the experience necessary to play as spontaneously as this
advice seems to advocate. I find myself constantly questioning whether or not to play certain hands given
the texture of the game, the playing qualitites of the limpers on that hand (and yes, the number of limpers
too.)
In sum, I think this approach is great. It's one I'm growing to embrace, but embracing cautiously and
analytically. In many marginal situations, I'm not convinced of that "play it and you'll make the money after
the flop" is +EV for me. I would still like to reserve the right to ask some questions that sound like I'm
keeping the training wheels on, in an effort to understand why I should do, what I should do.
Ed Miller
You are absolutely right.
In fact, I fully support the use of training wheels. All I want to do is shake some of you guys out of your
preflop rut a little. I want to expose you to how expert players begin to think about preflop play. This post is
for the people who don't understand why you should play A3s on the button after one weak limper.
No need to "forget everything you ever knew about preflop play." Just open your mind a little bit...
Gomez22
Nice post again, Ed (MK)..... I have a few thoughts to add that relate to this:
I don't know exactly when it happened, but when I first started playing hold em in August 2003, I was
constantly counting pot odds versus my outs to determine my calling/raising/folding status; even PF with
marginal hands. Now, however, I just take an estimation..... If the pot has alot of money in it for the limit
I'm playing, I'll usually peel the turn and go from there, folding if not improving, calling or raising if I do. I
don't have numbers to back it up, because I'm too lazy to check back through every single time I've done it,
but I would imagine it's made me a wee bit more than if I had played "strictly by the odds".
There have been times I've limped with hands like 76s UTG at a loose passive table (even J9s, or QJo)
because I WANTED to play those hands, as you would say because the table "allowed" me to do exactly
that. Would I have done this beginning? Hell, no. Would I do this now? Only under proper circumstances.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there seem to be "rules" and "guidelines" for playing hold em, but they
sometimes seem to rarely apply very often in every situation. This part I'm just learning, and I think I may
be taking a beating doing it somewhat, as I did take about 3 weeks off the game, but it's coming back pretty
well now, and I enjoy seeing your posts that really don't spit in the face of "tradition", but expand new
horizons for others to think about.
Keep it up, I know I enjoy the reads!
Mike
I agree with the spirit behind your post 100%!
To find good information or reasonable discussion on topics we should have an interest in, ie, betting
frequency, bluffing frequency, game theory application, game type strategy, I find myself back in the 98,99
archives or Google archives where S & M, Lederer and others have something worth saying that goes for 20
or 30 posts per thread with real solid content and thinking that is levels above my own.
How many times must we rediscuss, How do I...., Should I have... when it pertains to odds or starting cards?
Any single hand is just that, we discuss the mechanics of proper play of a hand at length but it has little to
do with reality of the table if you are really thinking about what is going on.
41
Perhaps I turned this into a minor rant, sorry. I just meant to say I agree with your thinking here, lets move
on to more relevent topics.
Mike Gallo
I experienced something Saturday night at the Borgata that will demonstrate the potential wealth of this
post.
A young man ( Columbia) at the table two seats to my left took out a starting hands chart whenever he did
not know what to do preflop. He would refer to the chart quite often. He had no qualms about telling
everyone the hands he folded and why he folded them.
To demonstrate the wealth within the original post, I offer the following situation. Our hero Columbia
through away the potentially dangerous A3 suited from the cutoff position. He had two limpers and
according to Sklansky you never play this with only two limpers. He stated that he needed to know for the
certain that neither blinds would raise and the small blind would have called.
Of course as fate would have it Columbia would have turned the nuts and gotten paid off by a set and a J
high flush. The small blind only called with Jacks, and the big blind also just checked.
In all fairness to Columbia he never said a word during the hand, however his body language said it all.
After the hand ended he gave the play by play.
I do not think a player will beat poker with such a rigid standard.
Please refer people to this post when they ask chart questions
Ed Miller
But what confuses me is the fact that you should treat a new, unknown table as a loose one until proven
otherwise. So I can never be certain.
From p.67
Small Pairs (66-22)...If it has been raised in front of you, to play you need to be almost sure the pot will be
five-handed or more.
From p.76
These recommendations are not rigid. View them like training wheels for preflop play: When you feel lost,
look to these guidelines for a decent default play. An expert player who fully understands preflop and
postflop concepts will frequently deviate (correctly) from these suggestions.
From p.77
[S]implicity was a top priority when we developed these recommendations. Correct play is inherently
complex, but we have simplified wherever possible. Specifically, if two choices ran close in value, but one
allowed us to simplify the system to make it easier to learn, we used the simpler choice, sometimes at the
expense of a small amount of expectation.
42
In other words, use of brain is required when using the charts. Look how simple the charts are. It's
impossible to cram an expert preflop strategy into four pages of chart. Thus, you can expect to find lots of
examples where the "chart" play is not the expert play. This is one of them.
Having said that, if you did call in that spot, it would cost you money, but it wouldn't call you a fortune.
That's the point of the chart. If you rigidly adhered to the chart play at all costs, you'd do ok. Not great, but
ok. And you'd do much better than a lot of your opponents.
If you rigidly adhered to the charts and played expertly postflop, you'd be a significant winner in almost any
game up to and including $20-$40 live. But if you modified the chart where appropriate (and it's often
appropriate) then you'd make even more.
I issue a challenge to 2+2...
Ed Miller
This is my challenge...
I challenge the entirety of the sane 2+2 forum community(ignoring the denizens of the Internet and Other
Topics forums because they are basically uncontrollable wackos) to go one full week, starting this moment,
without asking the question, "can loose games be beaten?" even once. Also prohibited are obvious
variations of the question, such as, "can too many bad players lower your win rate?" and "would I make
more money if I moved up?"
Are you up to the challenge?
Reasons we raise... and a suggestion for S&M
Ed Miller
Ok... I see this posted over and over and over again, so I thought I'd address it. Why should we raise in
holdem... well HPFAP suggests on p.95 in the chapter titled Raising that we raise for five reasons:
"1. To get more money in the pot
2. To drive players out
3. To bluff (or semi-bluff)
4. To get a free card
5. To get information"
I would assert that those are listed roughly in the order of importance... that is, the most common or often
the most important reason to raise is to get more money in the pot... the next most common or important
reason to raise is to drive players out. I see over and over again, "I did not think that I could get anyone to
fold, so I just smooth-called with premium hand X." Driving players out is not the only reason to raise...
indeed it is not even the most important reason to raise. Even more importantly, not being able to drive
players out with a raise is no reason at all not to raise with a premium hand. Legitimate reasons for not
raising with a premium hand would include things like pot-size manipulations or perhaps occasionally
deception. But, if you have a premium hand (especially one like AA or KK before the flop), unless you can
come up with a cogent and valid reason that involves pot-sizes and/or need for deception (i.e. don't just say,
"I think I'll be deceptive this time" on a whim) then you should raise to get more money in the pot. After all,
you will win that pot more than your fair share of the time, you want it to be as big as possible, right?
Now for my suggestion to S&M:
The Raising chapter in HPFAP, after it lists the five reasons for raising, then discusses those reasons. In the
first paragraph after the list, you are already talking about reason #2, completely skipping over reason #1. I
43
assume that is because you felt that reason #1 was too obvious to waste comment on. Perhaps if you release
a 3rd edition of HPFAP, you should include some discussion of raising for value.
Wow.. I am surprised by the advice here!
In response to this post
Girchuck
Second hand in the same orbit, he is in CO, I'm on the button with AQo, two new players post in MP, no
one else calls, tight player calls in CO, I raise hoping to drive everyone away, no dice, BB and posters call
so does the tight player in CO
The flop is again 3 9 T no flush
checked to tight player in CO who bets, I call (loosely?), every one else folds.
The turn is A (3 9 T)
he bets, I raise, he calls,
The river is Q(A 3 9 T), he checks, I bet he calls and shows 9Ts.
I was drawing to runner-runner on the flop.
Was there any way for me to know that?
He told me I was a maniac, am I?
Ed Miller
You people's advice is really to raise a tight player's bet on a T93 flop with AQo with three people to act
behind you?
You have nothing. Let me repeat. You have nothing. You are being bet into by a guy who must have you
beaten unless he has QJ (and who might not bet into you from your right with QJ fearing a raise knocking
out the field).
So the guy betting into you has you drawing almost certainly... who knows what the people behind you
have... someone could have checked a monster (though that's always a relatively low probability). And who
knows if your outs will even give you the best hand. Q could make a straight.. either an A or Q could make
someone else two pair.
Man... you people spend all your time whining when your top pairs get cracked all the time... and then you
sit there putting in two bets on the flop when you are drawing at 7-1 to that same hand? You missed.
Someone else didn't. Fold your hand.
My Flowchart for Holdem Success against Poor Players
Ed Miller
Have they checked to you? -No- Move to "Holy sh*t, they bet into me... WTF do I do
|
now? Flowchart"
Yes
|
Do you have a made hand? -No- Bet
|
Yes
|
Don't even think about not betting. Now did they call you? -No- Sweet!
|
Yes
|
Sweet! When they check to you next round, move back to top and start over to find your best action.
44
Ok, this is silly...
Ed Miller
I've noticed a small trend recently of, "Should I fold my big draw?" posts. Here's the answer. Ready? The
answer is no. You should not fold. I don't care what the situation is, you should not fold. I don't care if it's 8
bets to you on the turn and if you lose this pot, you won't have enough to buy beer for the trip home. You
still do not fold. In this example, our hero has four cards that give him the nuts (admittedly, the button is
likely to have KJ), seven more that almost certainly make him the winner, and one (the T ) that is only
quite likely to make him the winner. Folding is sheer madness...
Situations where it's correct to throw away a decent draw (flush or straight draw) in limit poker are very few
and far between. And when it is correct to throw the draw away, it is only very marginally so (such that, if
you call, you lose very little). So don't worry about it... just put the damn chips in and pray.
This is like the "what do I do with the nuts?" posts. This is not where the money is won and lost in limit
holdem (well, I take that back... if you routinely make these folds then this is where the money is lost). Stop
wasting brain cycles on this crap.
BTW, a rule of thumb
Ed Miller
It is usually(bolded by mmbt0ne so that no one blames this post for their bad play) worth seeing the river if
you have a gutshot and two overcards. Unlike flush draws and two card open-ended straight draws, you
can't simply follow this rule blindly. Even so, your draw will usually be strong enough, and the pot big
enough, that you should continue. You'd better have a damn good reason if you think a fold is in order.
Specific examples of weak-tight, monsters under the bed from WLLH
Ed Miller
I'm only skimming over the postflop chapters looking for weak-tight, monsters under the bed advice. There
are other errors in this book, so do not assume that if I do not mention something, that there isn't a problem.
I have the 2nd Edition, and am not going to quote, just paraphrase. If anyone cares to follow along, you
should probably get your copy out and read the actual passages that I'm referring to. I do not plan to
misrepresent the advice in any way, but whenever you paraphrase, you risk changing the meaning slightly.
Always check the original source before you form an opinion.
1. Page 67: You have pocket kings in a 3-way pot. The flop comes ace-high. He recommends that you bet
on the flop (typically good advice). But then he says that if someone calls, the caller probably has at least an
ace or better. In low-limit games, that simply isn't true. Yes, someone will sometimes have an ace, but often
they will call with any pair or any draw. You can't assume someone has an ace simply because it exists on
the flop and he called your bet. This is really a point of critical importance for low-limit games.
2. Page 74-6: You have A 6 seven ways for one bet in the cutoff. The flop is A T 5 . He
advises that if the player directly on your right bets, you should raise the flop (this is fine). But then if
everyone else folds and the bettor calls your raise, he tells you to check behind on the turn. In low-limit
games, you need to bet this hand again for value. If you are going to check, do so on the river, not the turn.
But then he says that if the flop bettor is a habitual bluffer, that you should JUST CALL on the flop instead
of raise. I think he has confused advice for HEADS-UP play with advice for SEVEN-HANDED play.
Much worse, however, is his advice in the next paragraph. Same hand, but now everyone checks to you on
the flop. He tells you to bet the flop (good). But if anyone calls you, he tells you to "check all the way" from
there. This advice is simply terrible. I shouldn't have to explain why it's bad. Hopefully it's obvious to
everyone who reads this board.
45
Then he says that if you are in early position, that you should simply check and fold. If you check the flop
and it's checked around, you should bet the turn. Then if anyone calls, you should check and call again on
the river. Dude, this is just terrible advice. I'm sorry. In fact, this advice is PARTICULARLY bad in a lowlimit game. It would actually be BETTER (though not good) in a mid-limit game.
He then tells you to dump ace-rag hands as soon as they miss their flush draw. His analysis of this situation,
an important and common one, is absolutely horrendous. He has you playing WAY too passively in this
situation.
Page 83: You have Q Q and the flop is T 8 8 . He tells you to bet the flop (again correctly),
but if you are called, you should fear an eight and check the turn. This is pretty much just plain wrong. If he
was going to give this advice, he should at least have made the example A A on a J J 4 . At
least then checking the turn isn't as bad.
He then tells you that betting the turn and river is a "lose-lose" situation, as no worse hand could possibly
call you down for fear that you have an eight.
Then he says that if the board is paired over your pocket pair, you should fold at the first opportunity.
He then provides another example where he has A J on a J 6 6
the same way (i.e., bet the flop and then check the turn if someone calls).
flop, that he suggests you play
Page 89: This is not a weak-tight MUTB error, but it stuck out at me. He tells you to play red aces "fast" on
a 9 8 7 flop, but drop them if you get a lot of action. The way you should play red aces on that
board in no way resembles fast.
Hand 94: "Suppose you have A J on the button and there were three calls in front of you pre-flop. You
call, as do both blinds..." HUGE ERROR.
Hand 128: You have A 4 and the board is A T J 6 3 . You have bet the flop and turn,
and an opponent has called. He tells you to check the river because your opponent either has a busted flush
draw or a stronger ace. Obviously, this simply ISN'T TRUE in a low-limit game. People call with ALL
SORTS OF STUFF. After all, isn't that the whole point?
These are a few examples of significantly weak-tight advice from WLLH. The main mistake he makes is
that he tells you to assume that people who CALL FLOP BETS must have strong hands like top pair or an
overpair beaten. People in low-limit games call flop bets with like every hand imaginable. If you assume
that your opponents have you beaten every time they call on the flop, you have no hope.
I understand that WLLH is directed to beginners, so the advice is conservative and simple. But that doesn't
mean paranoid and totally wrong. For instance, if I were to give some "beginner level" advice for low-limit
games, I'd start with this:
If your opponents have done nothing but check and call so far, assume that they have weak hands and act
accordingly. If you have a good hand like top pair or an overpair, that usually means that you should
continue betting until you are raised.
I want to make it clear that I have nothing against Lee Jones, and I respect the effort he has put into his
book. At the same time, you should understand SPECIFICALLY the stuff I'm talking about when I
characterize his advice as weak-tight and monsters under the bed. I consistently get people telling me, "I
just don't see what you are talking about." Well, now hopefully you see.
Re: RGP explains why you dont' raise 44 out of BB w/ 7 limpers (OT)
46
Ed Miller
Maybe you should ask the question of Ed Miller.
Ok. I've read both of Gary Carson's books and a few of his posts from RGP (including those from the thread
currently in question). He clearly understands poker better than almost all other poker authors. He also
understands it better than most of the posters on this forum.
Also, I agree with him wholeheartedly in this particular RGP thread. Yes, almost no one seems to
understand how variance/EV/win rate/CV work. And yes, basically all of the adjustments that people make
to "lower their variance" are actually just shooting themselves in the foot.
99% of the time when someone says, "I try to keep my variance low," or, "I avoid making risky plays/raises
to protect my bankroll," I hear, "I don't really understand limit hold 'em." It's that simple.
None of the best players I know make these adjustments. None. If you don't believe me, talk to the
outstanding players who frequent this forum: Clarkmeister, El Diablo, Paluka, etc.
That's not to say that, IN THEORY, such an adjustment must be wrong. Overbetting your bankroll is a real
issue in other gambling games like blackjack and sports betting. But IN PRACTICE, when you play LIMIT
HOLD 'EM, there are not really any reasonable places to "adjust" your game to lower your risk of ruin. Any
adjustments to "non-optimal" play you make basically lower your winrate too much for their corresponding
loss of variance, dropping your CV and increasing your risk of ruin.
That's why I'm so adamant about emphasizing that poker is a gambling game. You are gonna have some
serious losing streaks if you play a lot of poker. It's gonna hurt. There are no major adjustments you can
make to change that or soften the blow. Suck it up or find a new game.
Finally, Gary Carson certainly didn't claim that pot odds are irrelevant in theory. You misread him, he
misstated his position, or something else. He may have said, "I don't bother calculating pot odds at the
table." I would say the same... I don't calculate pot odds when I play either. I usually just "know" if the pot
is big enough or not. I estimate. I recommend that beginners/intermediates actually count and do the math. I
used to. But I don't anymore.
I do disagree with Gary sometimes, and I wouldn't have written his books the way he wrote them. (That's
why he writes his books, and I write mine.) But unlike many poker authors, Gary basically knows his stuff.
For most people, if you disagree with him on a given issue, you're probably wrong.
Everyone who wants to "charge the flush draws" PLEASE READ
Ed Miller
I check-raised the flop to, as the mantra goes, to charge as much for the flush draw as possible.
This "charge the flush draws" mantra has annoyed me for a year and a half now. As ramjam accurately
noted, there is virtually no situation on the flop where you are in a multiway pot and raising to "charge the
flush draws." When the flush draw gets multiway action, it makes money on the bets going in just like you
do (at the expense of those calling with weaker made hands and weaker draws).
I'm not 100% sure where this idea first appeared, but I think I know. It does not appear in 2+2 books... but it
does appear almost word-for-word in a popular book on low-limit hold 'em of suspect quality.
This single line has caused more confusion on this forum than any other "concept" in poker:
1) Apparently you have concluded that if you are "charged too much" with your flush draw, you should fold
2) Others have concluded that it is correct always to play a flush draw passively to avoid being "charged"
47
3) Still others put in silly 3-bets and 4-bets on the flop (in situations where their winning chances are
dubious) because they are deathly afraid of "failing to charge the flush draws." Ironically, the 3- and 4-bets
are often better for the flush draws than the player making them.
Because pots are so big before the flop in limit hold 'em, anyone who flops ANY flush draw is usually
correct to see both the turn and river almost no matter what. Virtually the only situations where it is correct
to dump the flush draw is if it is CLEAR that someone already has you drawing dead. This is if the board is
DOUBLE (not single) paired on the turn and there is heavy action, or if there are trips on board. You have
to be quite sure that you are drawing dead, though, because the pot is typically very large. This gives you a
massive overlay to draw to your nine outs. Folding when you "think he might" have a boat can be very
expensive.
This means that flush draws are very easy to play... and play against. If you are playing a flush draw, you
usually should play aggressively for the first bet or two on the flop, for various reasons. Otherwise, you are
calling all bets until the river. Thus, when you are playing against a flush draw, he is your companion to the
river. If it gets there, he wins. If it doesn't, you win. There is nothing you can do to get him out, so don't
worry about him. Your job is to protect your hand from the people with bottom pair, gutshots, backdoor
draws, etc. whom you can force out.
Everybody... for my sanity... please stop "charging the flush draws." It is not a helpful concept, and you
guys interpret it in funny ways that lead you to make significant errors.
Hand Quiz Section
Many, Many More
There are hand quizzes all over 2+2. Tons of other good posters have put them up, and even more great
posters have responded. I only put together these 4 because, they were the first 4 I got. Assuming that I
actually get around to updating this like I planned, I will certainly be using Sarge’s quizzes.
Remember, every single post in the micros forum is basically a mini hand quiz. If you don’t do well on
these (not that I included definite answers) then go to the forums and try to answer some there. You aren’t
getting any better by not trying.
Disclaimer
I don’t give anything resembling answers for any of the quizzes. If a reply gave decent reasoning with the
choices, I included it. You may notice of Festus22’s quizzes that his numbers don’t add up with what you
read. That is because I declined to include any post consisting of:
1) raise
2) call
3) call
.
.
etc.
In the rare occasion that I did include one of these responses, you’ll notice that it is from a very highly
respected poster who went into detail later in the thread.
48
A preflop quiz of sorts.
Chris Daddy Cool
Some of these answers may be hard, or easy, just wondering what you guys think.
Typical 2/4 Party game. Lineup includes yourself, 2 TAG's (probably 2+2'ers) feeding on the fish, one
decent player, and 6 really, really bad players. Table is loose, semi-aggressive, with the aggression usually
coming from the 2 TAG's when they get a hand, and one LAGish fish.
1) KJo in the SB. LAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls by fishies. Folded back to you.
2) AJo in the SB. TAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls. Folded back to you.
3) 99 on the button. LAG openraises from MP1. TAG 3bets (he's tried to isolate the LAG a couple of
times). Folded to you.
4) TT in the BB. 4 limpers. TAG raises in the SB.
5) A8s in the CO. TAG raises UTG. 3 coldcallers.
6) same as 5, but 2 coldcallers.
7) 98o in the BB. TAG raises UTG. 5 coldcallers. Back to you.
8) AA UTG.
Schneids
1) Fold
2) Fold
3) Good question. I fold.
4) Call and be prepared to raise a favorable flop.
5) Fold or call. Depends on level of fishiness of cold callers and whether I'll be able to peel off multiple bets
with them when I can hit a flush.
6) Fold.
49
7) Call.
8) Where are the LAGs in relation to me?
How'd I do?
Peter Harris
Bearing in mind i play .5/1, i will adjust based on your player readings:
1) KJo in the SB. LAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls by fishies. Folded back to you.
call and see the flop, to hit K or J, expect to be behind pf to Ace-low, or small PP
2) AJo in the SB. TAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls. Folded back to you.
fold
3) 99 on the button. LAG openraises from MP1. TAG 3bets (he's tried to isolate the LAG a couple of
times). Folded to you.
i fold; TAG may be playing to isolate with A9, or 88, but i don't want to get tangled up in a raising war.
4) TT in the BB. 4 limpers. TAG raises in the SB.
i 3-bet; the TAG will probably be playing overcards, AK, AQ, AJs, 99, 88, any pair for value, actually. The
3-bet may make some people give up behind and if all low cards flop (what % of the time with TT?), i can
bet/raise the SB
5) A8s in the CO. TAG raises UTG. 3 coldcallers.
i fold, but only bacause i am currently overplaying Axs. I don't think you have enough players, i wouldn't
trust the 8 and you're in trouble with the A
6) same as 5, but 2 coldcallers.
still fold, but that means my above judgement may be tainted
7) 98o in the BB. TAG raises UTG. 5 coldcallers. Back to you.
do you have odds to see the flop? 1 bet to 13, i'd go for it
8) AA UTG.
raise. OR limp-reraise depending on my image, i like to mix it up at a table like this, as i expect someone
else to raise it PF so i can 3-bet, yeah it shows AA or KK, but with all these LAGs and fishies, i think i'll get
paid off.
I look forward to seeing other responses to see how off-base i am!
Regards,
Pete Harris
Ralph Wiggum
I don't always do the same thing (sometimes due to uncertainty, current mood, & belief that I should mix it
up), so I have two responses to some of the questions.
1. Call
2. Fold or Call
3. Cap
50
4. Call or 3-bet
5. Fold or Call
6. Fold
7. Fold or Call
8. Raise or LimpRR
chief444
Some good questions.
1) Fold, but closer to a call than #2.
2) Fold.
3) Either fold or cap, depending on how much I felt TAG was just going for the isolation. Usually fold less
than TT for 3-bets. But 99 is a tough one to lay down here with position.
4) Just call. If it were an LAG in the SB I 3-bet. If the flop looks good (catch a set or all <10) I'm raising an
open bet by SB.
5) Close. I probably call with three coldcallers.
6) Close. I probably fold with two coldcallers. Part of this decision (and for #5) depends on who the other
callers are. The weaker they are the more likely I am to call.
7) Call, getting 14:1 immediate odds and closing the pf action.
8) Raise. With a loose, "semi-aggressive" (as opposed to more aggressive) table I hate playing this any
other way.
GoblinMason (Craig)
1.)Fold, but as everyone else already pointed out, closer than 2
2.)Fold. No question here, for me anyway.
3.)Fold.
4.)Call.
5.)Fold.
6.)Fold.
7.)Call.
8.)Raise 95% of the time. Make sure you can 3-bet the other 5% of the time.
Am I too tight??
sfer
1) Fold.
2) Fold
3) Who's in the blinds--likely to come along? Probably fold.
4) 3-bet.
5) Call.
6) Fold unless both blinds are loose.
7) Call.
8) I don't get cute. Just raise.
Shalara
I like this quiz.
1. Fold.
2. That's tough. I often fold it to an early position raiser, and to a TAG raise. But with the fish in, and the
fact that I only need to call the half bet, I think this hand stands a chance. I'd call, but play cautiously.
3. Fold.
4. Call.
5. Hmmm... this one is pretty hard. Up til now I've been folding in that kind of situation. But it occurs to me
51
that it might be better to call or 3-bet. I am leaning towards 3-bet, but I'd really like to see some feedback on
that. Thinking that if I make my hand, it will be huge, the 3-bet might get me a free card on the flop, and I
*do* have an ace, albeit with a junk kicker.
6. Fold.
7. Fold.
8. Raise.
Trix
1) Fold
2) Fold (AQo too)
3) Really depends how loose he is and what stuff the TAG have been isolating with. I just fold till I know.
4) Call
5) Coldcall
6) Fold
7) Call (You have very nice implied odds if you hit a hand)
8) Raise...
chief444
1) KJo in the SB. LAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls by fishies. Folded back to you.
2) AJo in the SB. TAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls. Folded back to you.
1. Fold.
2. That's tough. I often fold it to an early position raiser, and to a TAG raise. But with the fish in, and the
fact that I only need to call the half bet, I think this hand stands a chance. I'd call, but play cautiously.
Shalara,
Just curious...why do you feel #2 is a possible call but #1 is a clear fold? Personally I'd feel better playing
KJo against an LAG than AJo against a TAG. I don't feel great about playing either one out of position
which is why I would fold both even for 3/4 price. Thoughts?
Shalara
That's a good question.
KJo, to me, is easily dominated. Even a fish can catch a good hand once in a while, and the unsuited onegap not even ace-high just looks, well, hopeless.
AJo has a lot of the same problems. Though I'd probably call here, it's not an easy call by any means.
Maybe it is better to fold. It's easily dominated, and it's an unsuited 2-gap. On the other hand, it is often
easier to put a TAG on a hand than a LAG, while playing with other loose players in. There are a lot of
hands the TAG could be raising with. If an ace does hit the flop, unless TAG has AA, AK, or AQ, you've
probably got it sewed up. No matter what hits, you can probably put him on a hand, and see how yours
measures up. And the implied odds might make it call-worthy.
Must admit I thought it was a half bet though... re-reading, I see the words "SB", and I am berating myself
for not paying enough attention I would call it from the BB, not from the SB.
But if that is absolutely terrible [perhaps it is... nearly everyone else would fold here], I'd like to understand
why exactly. So I'm really glad you asked the question.
52
ZootMurph
I like playing these:
1) Fold. Bad position with a trouble hand.
2) Fold. Bad position with a marginal hand against a raise by a strong player UTG...
3) Raise. Raise or fold here. If you call, it will probably be capped by LAG anyway, so calling isn't an
option. May as well show strength to the TAG by capping. Also, you have strong position to work on.
Maybe I'm the LAG...
4) Call unless the limpers will be coming along for a 3 bet. If 3 of 4 will call a 3 bet, then I'll 3-bet it.
5&6) Fold. TAG raising UTG is enough for me to save my chips for later use.
7) Call. 13:1 odds. Need I say more?
8) Where is the LAG? On my immediate left I call and 3-bet/cap. Otherwise raise.
BolliTrader
1. Fold. No tags involved makes this a tough decision. I definetly call in the BB blind but fold in the SB.
2. Fold. Not even a question here. What is a TAG going to raise w/ from UTG? I assume I'm dominated and
I fold.
3. Fold. Not enough equity / implied odds in this one to call and not good enough to raise with.
4. Call. Even some very fishy players will fold rather than call 2. Not likely they will raise, but all will call.
Charge with a flop you like.
5. Fold. Tough one here. I don't like the 8 kicker which takes some equity out of the hand. I have to assume
the two other TAG's are after me as well so there is a chance of a 3 bet to come. If I'm going to play this one
I 3 bet to try and buy the button and fool the TAG into thinking my hand is stronger than it is. That being
said, I'll wait for AQs
6. Fold. See above.
7. Call. 13 to 1 on my money, last to act this round. Easy to get away from if I miss the flop.
8. Raise all day and twice on Sunday.
Chris are you going to be grading these? Is there a curve?
deke (AKA BlindChippy)
B Dids
1- Interesting. I want to fold, but Given all the money in the pot and your reads on the players, I'm tempted
to call.
2- Against a good players UTG raise, I'm laying this hand down.
3- call
4- re-raise.
5- call
6- call
7- call
8- fold, you're out of position :^).
Chris Daddy Cool (My Answers)
1) KJo in the SB. LAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls by fishies. Folded back to you.
Fold. There's been a lot of posts lately that have KJo calling a raise in the SB, which I think is pretty bad.
It's interesting that some of you guys say this hand is close because of the LAG raiser. If it was a TAG
raiser, then it'd be a clear fold? Remember, even LAG's get hands too, and it doesn't make up for your
position and that KJo makes a ton of second best hands. If this hand were in the BB rather than the SB,
53
that'd be a much closer decision.
2) AJo in the SB. TAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls. Folded back to you.
Fold, for many of the same reasons for hand 1.
3) 99 on the button. LAG openraises from MP1. TAG 3bets (he's tried to isolate the LAG a couple of
times). Folded to you.
This I thought was the most interesting question. Calling, I think, is horrible in this hand. Its either cap or
fold, depending on the frequency of the TAG's isolation 3bets. There aren't many cases or many hands
where you'd coldcall 3bets and this isn't one of them.
So it's either capping or folding, really depending on the frequency of the isolation 3bets.
4) TT in the BB. 4 limpers. TAG raises in the SB.
3bet. All about pot equity baby. Though a case can be made for calling and keeping the pot relatively small
so you can raise a favorable flop forcing the rest of the field to call two bets cold. This theoretically
shouldn't work though because gutshots and overcards would still have proper odds to call.
5) A8s in the CO. TAG raises UTG. 3 coldcallers.
As Schneids said, it depends on how fishy the coldcallers are and if you can get them to stay in with your
flush draws. If you can count one of the blinds to stay in, 5 opponents and position make this hand playable.
6) same as 5, but 2 coldcallers.
Fold. Not enough callers.
7) 98o in the BB. TAG raises UTG. 5 coldcallers. Back to you.
Some people suggested folding here which I think is completely wrong. This one is taken off of Noted
Poker Authority Ed Miller's Pre-Flop Quiz a couple months ago, but the hand was 86o. Well 98o is clearly
better than 86o and you're getting 13:1 odds closing the action. You can get away from your hand easily if
you miss the flop and you have very juicy c/r potential if you hit an OESD or whatever hand you can get.
8) AA UTG.
This one was the free one.
LAG is to your close left.
Don't get cute or fancy, raise!! Though you can go for the limp re-raise if the
B Dids
This I thought was the most interesting question. Calling, I think, is horrible in this hand. Its either cap or
fold, depending on the frequency of the TAG's isolation 3bets. There aren't many cases or many hands
where you'd coldcall 3bets and this isn't one of them.
So it's either capping or folding, really depending on the frequency of the isolation 3bets.
What does a cap get for you here? Nobody is folding to your cap. I think a cold-call is fine here. There's a
good chance that you've got the best hand. The real trick with this has is how you play the flop, not pre-flop.
Chris Daddy Cool
By that logic wouldn't it be best to cap anyways?
Also, you should be thinking about table image and sorts. If the TAG is isolating with marginal hands, you
have to tell him that you won't stand for it and he'll be more hesitant to try doing so, leaving the door open
for you to start doing the 3betting in future hands.
54
B Dids
I think a cap would be OK, I just don't see why cold-calling is horrible. While my hand might be best now,
there's a lot of cards in the deck that change that. If my reads are that they've both just got face cards, I can
assume I'm ahead on a raggy flop. Given what I think I know about both players, my cap probably won't
gain me control of the hand on the flop anway.
I take your point on table image, I guess for me if I'm going to make a statement it's with better cards. I'm
playing this hand because I think I've got a good shot at winning, not to prove a point. But that would
depend a lot on the table.
I think this is a really interesting hand...
ilya
Shalara wrote:
7. Fold.
How come?
Shalara
Because I'm just nuts I guess. Besides, I could use the time while they all play to make a grilled cheese
sandwich or something. [yummy ]
Just kidding.
Seriously though. I see that everyone called here. Great pot odds and all. Can't argue with that. But I'm
uncomfortable with the idea of unsuited connectors in this spot. Oddly enough, my first post, I think, was
this exact hand, but with less callers. I did call there. Won, too. But it was mentioned that calling with
unsuited connectors in this position was less than savory.
I considered that, and decided the person was right. Still, I suppose with that many callers, it's worth a peek.
Now here's a question: at which point are there too few callers to make this a good call?
ilya
I think I'd actually prefer fewer callers. Maybe 2-3? Plus the BB, who seems likely to come along in this
game. There're lots of ways that my straight might not end up the nuts, so I'd prefer to have as few of the AT range out as possible. Also it'd be less likely that someone would make a flush to beat my straight.
If there were more than 5 cold callers, on the other hand, I think I would fold. Even if I made my hand, I
might well not be able to play it agressively.
Ok, your post has made me hungry. Off I go
Chris Daddy Cool
This is backwards thinking. The less players in the pot the less compelled you should be to call with this
hand. In fact, if the entire table coldcalled you should call with any type of reasonable hand.
There're lots of ways that my straight might not end up the nuts, so I'd prefer to have as few of the A-T
range out as possible. Also it'd be less likely that someone would make a flush to beat my straight.
You can't have this type of thinking when playing, otherwise you'll be making a lot of bad folds and playing
too passively to collect a lot of big bets.
Jeff
1) KJo in the SB. LAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls by fishies. Folded back to you.
3-bet this (I would at least, but I like KJ). You are probably ahead here, the fishies will call the raise, the
55
LAG could be raising with Ax/Axs, any PP, or even garbage. It'd be easy enough to fold if it's clear you are
dominated. Out of position? Yes. Dominated hand? I'd make that argument if it wasn't a LAG that raised
UTG.
2) AJo in the SB. TAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls. Folded back to you.
Fold, as you are facing AQ or a high PP most likely. Or maybe KQs. You are likely behind by a hand that
dominates you though.
3) 99 on the button. LAG openraises from MP1. TAG 3bets (he's tried to isolate the LAG a couple of
times). Folded to you.
Cap it, or fold, depends how well you play a hand like 99 on the flop.
4) TT in the BB. 4 limpers. TAG raises in the SB.
Call. This could be a very profitable hand, or a quick fold.
5) A8s in the CO. TAG raises UTG. 3 coldcallers.
I'd probably call this. While you are likely behind the TAG, this is going to be a large pot.
6) same as 5, but 2 coldcallers.
I'd probably muck this one. Not as much revenue potential.
7) 98o in the BB. TAG raises UTG. 5 coldcallers. Back to you.
Call or even raise - raising to mask the hand and get more money in the pot. If you raise preflop and the flop
hits you, the TAG will have a very distorted read. While you are definitely behind the TAG, 98o is better to
have against AK than AQ is. Pot odds might be against it, but it's an easy fold, and at the same time could
generate a huge pot.
8) AA UTG
Raise it unless you there is usually a preflop raise. Limp-RR if the table is agressive enough.
Vern
1) Call unless there is a LAG in the BB too. There are 7.5SB in the pot, if you call you are getting 5:1
immediate odds and you are 3:1 to have top pair or better. The fish make the difference. Second you have
relative position on the fish since the LAG is to your left. Lets say you hit a flop you like, you can CR the
flop or turn depending on the board and trap the fish in after they call a single bet from the LAG in a huge
pot. Granted, it is a loose call, but against a LAG and two fish, I think the +EV is in relative position and
play after the flop.
2) Fold, even two fish cannot keep me from running away from a true TAG's UTG raise. He is more likely
than a LAG to have a big pair or the AJo dominated to be raising from UTG and less likely to get stupid
with aggression if the flop misses him so harder to get paid off.
3) Fold, TAG 3 betting likely means he either has a pocket pair 88 or higher or overcards to you that he
wants to play heads up with the LAG. Even if you call it could still come back 4 bet by the LAG and you
are likely facing at least three overcards between them if not an overpair. I live to fight another day. If the
second player was also a LAG, then I cap it myself hoping they both have those Axs crap hands they love to
raise with and cancel each other out.
4) Raise, even if the TAG has an overpair to you, the other 4 limpers are still paying you when they call.
Also, if a TAG thinks he has been solid with his table image, your raising PF could save you some money if
you still have an overpair to the board at the river and he has an overpair to you.
5) Tough, depends on who the callers were. That TAG UTG tells me I am behind so I am looking at the
56
odds to catch up. I will make two pair or a flush draw or better with odds ~7:1 against, so I am taking the
worst of it 4.75:1 in the hopes I can make up if I hit my hand. Who are the callers and who is left to act. If
the LAG is left to act, FOLD, if one of the TAG's has called or the decent player, FOLD. If the TAG raised
UTG and 3 fish called and there are nothing but 3 fish left to play, CALL. I am looking for a reason to
dump this, not to keep it.
6) Fold.
7) Call, closing action 13:1 to you and you will get two pair w/o pair on board, an OESD or better with
odds ~7:1. Again, with relative position between you and the PF raiser. If you hit your OESD or better you
can CR the flop/turn depending on the board and trap all those cold callers that called the TAG's bet. You
are unlikely to stick around with this hand unless you get two pair, the OESD or something better so you
likely only lose the one bet you voluntarily put in if you miss.
8) Limp if they are red or black aces and go for the re-raise to trap callers. Raise if I have one black and one
red ace.
Take it for what it is worth though, I have 5K hands at 2/4 and am only able to squeak by at .5BB/100
hands although it is getting better the more hands I get in.
Chris Daddy Cool
1) KJo in the SB. LAG openraises UTG, 2 coldcalls by fishies. Folded back to you.
3-bet this (I would at least, but I like KJ). You are probably ahead here, the fishies will call the raise, the
LAG could be raising with Ax/Axs, any PP, or even garbage. It'd be easy enough to fold if it's clear you are
dominated. Out of position? Yes. Dominated hand? I'd make that argument if it wasn't a LAG that raised
UTG.
This is far too aggressive and generally not a good idea at all.
7) 98o in the BB. TAG raises UTG. 5 coldcallers. Back to you.
Call or even raise - raising to mask the hand and get more money in the pot. If you raise preflop and the
flop hits you, the TAG will have a very distorted read. While you are definitely behind the TAG, 98o is
better to have against AK than AQ is. Pot odds might be against it, but it's an easy fold, and at the same
time could generate a huge pot.
The big appeal to this hand is CLOSING THE ACTION. This is a concept not many players understand
when making out of position calls, cursing themselves when they get raised behind or when there aren't any
customers for your gutshot draw.
Raising in this case might lead to a 3bet from UTG, which would not be good for you. Also the point about
masking your hand is not very important in this hand. Generally the larger the pot is and the more players in
the field, the less value disguising your hand has. The pot already is huge and there's already a bunch of
callers, so raising has little value.
Schneids
If you play the 99 one I think you cap it. The earlier you show aggression, the easier the hand will be for
you to play when there is one overcard on the flop.
B Dids
Show me how- I guess I'm still not seeing how that agression takes place. Do you really see the maniac or
the TAG slow down because of your cap. If you're the TAG how is your play changed by the CAP behind
you?
I'll lay out a scenario and tell me how you'd play it.
57
You've got 9
9
You've now got 3 players in the hands for 4 bets each. Maniac is 1st, TAG is 2nd, you're 3rd. I'll give you
two flops.
Flop comes... 4
8
King
Flop comes... 4
8
7
. Maniac bets, TAG raises, you?
, Manaic bets, TAG raises, you?
Chris Daddy Cool
You're assuming that the TAG will raise the flop no matter what. But if he was isolating with ATo and gets
capped from behind, he will be much more hesitant to raise into you with such a holding.
Even LAG's will slow down if its been capped.
More often it'd go, LAG checks, TAG bets, you raise. Or, LAG bets, TAG calls (or folds because he doesn't
want to be trapped between raisers) and you raise.
ilya
I don't really understand why my thinking is so wrong in this particular situation. It still seems to me that as
the number of callers rises above 4 or 5 or so, your pot odds don't increase as much as they seem to since
you can no longer have much certainty in how clean many of your outs are. also, if you make your hand and
bet or check-raise, people will be less likely to call or re-raise you with a hand you can beat, since the pot
will likely be more protected. it'll also be harder to engineer a check-raise with your straight if you do make
it, as late position players will be less likely to semi-bluff into a more multiway pot. but if you bet out when
you make your straight, it's easy to read your hand as the straights you make aren't deceptive at all.
that said i suspect in real life i'd call the family pot.
is this all a bunch of nonsense?
58
quiztime, yay
Chris Daddy Cool
preflop, typical game moderately loose moderately aggressive
some questions may be easy, some may be hard. just interested in seeing what you guys say
1) 22 folded to you in MP2
2) 66 folded to you in MP2
3) A6s folded to you in MP2
4) KTs on the button, 4 limpers
5) A9s on the CO, 4 limpers
6) 88 in the BB, TAG raises UTG, coldcalled by 1 fish, LAG 3bets from SB
7) K5s on the button, 4 limpers
8) 55 UTG+1, TAG raises UTG
9) 55 CO, LAG openraises from CO-1
10) A7o in the SB, weak fish open limps from CO. BB is TAG.
11) A6o on the button, weak fish open limps from CO, blinds are tight
12) same as 11, blinds are loose
13) 88 in the BB, TAG raises from UTG, coldcalled by entire table
14) A5s UTG+1, TAG raises from UTG
15) same as 14, but LAG
16) 44 UTG+1, UTG raise
17) A9o 4 limpers to you in the CO
18) ATo in the BB, TAG raises UTG, 3 callers
19) A8s in the BB, 6 limpers
20) JTo in SB, UTG raises, 3 callers
B Dids
1) limp
2) limp
3) I've started open raising with suited Aces, but I think this is too early, I limp but feel iffy about it.
4) Ugh. I raise.
5) depending on reads, limp or raise.
6) fold. the TAG UTG raise scares me.
7) I lay this down, but I think Ed wants me to call.
8) Fold.
9) Cold call.
10) Raise, 'cause I think I might be able to fold the BB, but I could easly just complete or fold here.
11) Fold.
12) Still a fold I think.
13) CALL.
14) If I think the whole table will call this cold, I might, otherwise it's a fold.
15) Same answer. My concern isn't the raiser, 'cause I'm pretty much looking for my flush, it's will I have
the odds based on my reads.
16) Fold.
17) Fold.
18) Fold.
59
19) check my option.
20) Fold.
flexus
1) 22 folded to you in MP2
limp
2) 66 folded to you in MP2
limp
wow I must be a rock...all of you guys seem to be way looser than me.
I don't see why you would limp with those small pairs when it has been folded too you. It would have to be
an awful loose table for me to do so. I certainly would not do it at the party 0.5/1, which is becoming
increasingly tight.
B Dids
Party .5/1 has never been so tight (for me) that those limps are bad moves.
blackaces13
I think you can anticipate 3 or 4 LP opponents by just limping. If you get 3 in for a bet then you only need
to collect 4.5 SB's between the flop and the river to make it profitable. That should be doable on average
IMO.
flexus
and if it gets raised by one player behind and everybody else folds? This kind of thing does happen, and
when they do, its pretty much a disaster to our implied odds. Even if it gets raised and 3 players call you
have to collect 9 sb after the flop. That is not always possible. added to all of the above, you sets does not
always hold up.
Do you guys who open limp with small pairs in middle position have stats that shows that it is EV+ to do
so?
JohnShaft
I'll just make one quick comment on the very first hand.
1) 22 folded to you in MP2
I'm suprised so many consider this a call. MP2 is what, 4 off the button? You'd have to be pretty damn
confident 2 of the remaining 3 (after you) where going to call and there would be no raise to play this, imo.
I hate open limping in LMP with weak pairs. In fact I don't hate doing it. I just don't do it. Period.
Other than the ideal dream scenario above I can't think it can be good to limp here (and I think even that
scenario is both optimistic and slightly pushing it).
HajiShirazu
1 fold
-Not getting the multiway action needed to play this hand, and 22 isn't strong enough to raise, obviously
2 fold
-If this was MP3 I would raise, and I would raise here if I thought there was a reasonable chance that I
could get heads-up (not many games I can say this about at party.)
3 fold
-Would need to be in the CO to raise this weak suited ace, too much chance of someone picking up a hand
behind me here.
4 raise
-Standard raise, always good to get more money in pot when you have position and decent hand.
5 raise
-Same as 4 only raising is totally mandatory with both a better hand and to fold button
60
6 fold
-could be capped behind...if I was closing the action I might call since I am obviously against strong hands
that will give lots of action but not worth it for possible 3 bets.
7 call
-I don't like Kxs but I will play it with position in this sort of pot.
8 fold
-Not even close
9 fold
-Could try to 3-bet and isolate, however 55 is not really a favorite against even crap raising hands, also it is
hard to play small pairs against LAG's postflop since you are left guessing the 7/8 times you dont flop a set.
10 call
-raising might be a better play here, might raise if I thought the BB would fold a good percentage of the
time, however calling and trying to flop an ace is not bad either.
11 fold
-A6o is just too weak here.
12 fold
-Even worse
13 call
-No reason to open yourself up to a cap, and 88 isn't winning without a set...also there's no reason to make
the pot bigger for if you flop a set, this pot is huge already.
14 fold
-Not even close
15 fold
-Again not even close, there are just too many people who could pick up a hand behind you and A5s isn't
any good even against LAG raisers.
16 fold
-Calling could entice others to come in but I think doing so would still be a losing play.
17 fold
-A9o is trash multiway
18 fold
-ATo is trash against legitimate TAG UTG raising hands and is a poor implied odds hand.
19 call
-A8s wins more than its fair share here and one could make an argument for raising, however being out of
position and having a hand that isn't that strong makes me lean toward a call.
20 fold
-This would only barely be worth a call if no one had raised.
Nate tha' Great
1) 22 folded to you in MP2
It depends on the looseness of the players yet to act; let's call it a fold, though I don't think that limping is
horrible in games in which you have a postflop edge.
2) 66 folded to you in MP2
Raise
3) A6s folded to you in MP2
Raise or fold depending on the aggressiveness of the players yet to act. I don't like limping here.
4) KTs on the button, 4 limpers
Raise.
5) A9s on the CO, 4 limpers
61
Raise.
6) 88 in the BB, TAG raises UTG, coldcalled by 1 fish, LAG 3bets from SB
Fold, but it's close. If I were somehow guaranteed that UTG would not cap, then I might call.
7) K5s on the button, 4 limpers
Limp.
8) 55 UTG+1, TAG raises UTG
Fold. Not close.
9) 55 CO, LAG openraises from CO-1
Raise. Not close.
10) A7o in the SB, weak fish open limps from CO. BB is TAG.
If "weak" implies that he'll fold easily postflop, then I think this is a raise.
11) A6o on the button, weak fish open limps from CO, blinds are tight
I used to raise in these spots but it's one of those plays that I dumped in order to tighten up my table image a
little bit. Raising some of the time, or maybe even most of the time, is okay, but I think if you're routinely
isolating this limper than the blinds are going to notice and the play could catch up to you. Overlimping is
terrible; you fold if you don't want to raise.
12) same as 11, blinds are loose
Fold.
13) 88 in the BB, TAG raises from UTG, coldcalled by entire table
If literally everybody has called then I suppose you have a 3-bet. Oh how I miss Pacific Poker 2/4.
14) A5s UTG+1, TAG raises from UTG
F-O-L-D.
15) same as 14, but LAG
Still probably a fold, unless you can expect a ton of cold calls behind you. Even most LAGs tighten up
some in EP.
16) 44 UTG+1, UTG raise
Again, depends on the looseness of the players behind you. Folding is probably correct.
17) A9o 4 limpers to you in the CO
Probably a fold; on the Button I might call.
18) ATo in the BB, TAG raises UTG, 3 callers
62
Fold. Not close.
19) A8s in the BB, 6 limpers
Knuckle.
20) JTo in SB, UTG raises, 3 callers
Fold.
Chris Daddy Cool (My Answers)
1) 22 folded to you in MP2
I really really despise open limping from middle posistion with anything, let alone 22. I fold. There's no
garantee you'll get your limpers and if its raised you're going to go D'oh.
2) 66 folded to you in MP2
Raise. I don't like limping in this spot.
3) A6s folded to you in MP2
Raise. For same reasons above. Again, if table was really loose (but how could it be if it was folded to you)
a case can be made for limping.
4) KTs on the button, 4 limpers
Raise
5) A9s on the CO, 4 limpers
Raise
6) 88 in the BB, TAG raises UTG, coldcalled by 1 fish, LAG 3bets from SB
Fold. As many of you have pointed out, because UTG may come around and cap which would suck.
7) K5s on the button, 4 limpers
Limp.
8) 55 UTG+1, TAG raises UTG
Fold. Your position relative to the raiser sucks. If the table was really loose you can coldcall, I guess.
9) 55 CO, LAG openraises from CO-1
3bet! and its not close.
10) A7o in the SB, weak fish open limps from CO. BB is TAG.
Raise. Try to knock out the BB and isolate the limper. But if you're not confident about your post flop play
than you can avoid this hand.
11) A6o on the button, weak fish open limps from CO, blinds are tight
Raise to isolate the limper. Check out Tommy Angelo's post on limprotection. Same concept.
12) same as 11, blinds are loose
FOLD. FOLD. FOLD.
13) 88 in the BB, TAG raises from UTG, coldcalled by entire table
3bet and I don't think its close. but then again i'm a LAG. You have set equity for every extra bet that goes
63
in, why not put that money in?
14, 15.) fold.
16) 55. I just realized this is the same exact question as 8. So fold.
17, 18) fold.
19) A8s, 6 limpers.
Raise. Because I like making thin value raises.
20) JTo in SB, UTG raises, 3 callers
Fold.
64
Festus22’s Quiz #2
Festus22
Awhile back I posted a quiz asking what the majority of 2+2 posters would do versus what I did when faced
with these situations. I thought the results were very interesting so here is Quiz #2. Please post your answers
(either raise, call or fold) without looking at other responses. I'll keep a running tab on where the results
stand.
1. Black A-A LMP. UTG open raises, MP calls, you 3-bet, button calls 3 cold, SB caps, BB and all call.
Flop [Q 8 4 ]. SB bets, all call to you. Action?
2. A-A in MP. UTG+1 limps, folded to you and you raise. BB and UTG+1 call.
Flop [A-Q-10 R]. BB checks, UTG+1 bets, you raise, BB folds, UTG+1 calls.
Turn 4-[A-Q-10], 3 suits. UTG+1 checks, you bet, UTG+1 check-raises, you 3-bet, UTG+1 calls.
River is an 8, no 3-flush. UTG+1 checks, you bet, UTG+1 check-raises. Action?
3. 10-8s in the CO. 2 limpers to Mr. Anytwo who raises in MP, folded to you. Action?
4. K
4
in the SB. 5 limpers and you complete, BB checks. Flop [8
7
6
]. Action?
5. J 10 on the button. 4 limpers, you raise, BB and all call.
Flop [A 8 7 ]. BB bets, 2 limpers fold, MP raises, CO calls. Action?
6. A-Ko LMP. UTG limps, folded to you and you raise, both blinds and limper calls.
Flop [K-9-4, 2 suits]. Blinds check, UTG bets, you raise, blinds fold, UTG 3-bets, you cap.
Turn is a Q, no 3-flush. UTG bets. Action?
7. Q 10 in the BB. 3 limpers, SB completes, you check.
Flop [Q 9 8 ]. SB checks, you bet, only button and SB call.
Turn K [Q 9 8 ]. SB checks, you bet, button raises, SB calls. Action?
8. A J UTG. You open-limp. 3 more limpers and both blinds in.
Flop [K 10 4 ]. It gets checked around.
Turn J [K 10 4 ]. Checked to you and you bet, MP and button call, others fold.
River J [J K 10 4 ]. You bet, MP raises, button 3-bets. Action?
Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)
1) Raise. If he 3-bets, call and check/call to the river unless the fourth flush card hits.
2) Flat call.
3) Fold, unless he's a maniac. Just because they play any two doesn't mean they raise any two preflop.
4) Bet, raise, 3-bet, cap, as much as possible. Jam that [censored].
5) Coldcall. This hand merits a look at the turn.
6) Bet out. If raised, call and check/call the river. If called, bet the river.
7) Muck.
8) Cap.
CardCuda
1 - Raise the cheap st.
2 - Call (UTG+1 = KJ)
3 - Fold
4 - Check Raise
65
5 - Fold
6 - Raise
7 - Call
8 - 50/50 on this Call/Fold, I'd a played it differently but since the quiz bet the turn i'd probably call it down.
I feel I've been slow played considering the the river action. Chop?
Lost Wages
1. Raise
2. Call
3. Fold
4. Bet
5. Fold
6. Call
7. Call
8. Call
Comments
1. Not close.
2. He's checkraised you twice knowing you could have AA/QQ/TT so I'm beginning to suspect the nuts.
3. Not close.
4. I can't think of any reason to do anything but bet.
5. Rainbow flop, I would call. Two-tone board turns a marginal call into a fold.
6. Hard to believe he has worse than AK at this point but the pot has gotten too big to fold headsup. KQ and
99 are likely hands.
7. Very close, but closing the action tips the scale.
8. You have too much hand to fold after no one showed strength on the turn.
Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)
7. Very close, but closing the action tips the scale.
Not close, LW. If there's a flush out there, you're drawing dead. The J , T can't be considered clean
outs. Also, any T puts four to the straight on the board. I would muck this every time.
Lost Wages
Yes you are drawing dead to a flush so you need an overlay on your outs to call. 2 queen outs and 3 jack
outs that's five. Don't be so quick to discount your 2 ten outs. What hand do you put the others on that
contains a jack? Even if you only have 5 outs that's 8.2:1 and you are getting 9:1 closing the action. Like I
said, it's close. I wouldn't fault anyone for folding.
Festus22 (With a Few Precincts Reporting...)
...results so far, here's the tally:
1. 9 raise / 0 other
2. 2 raise / 7 call
3. 9 fold / 0 other
4. 7 bet / 2 check
5. 2 call / 7 fold
6. 5 raise / 4 call
7. 4 call / 5 fold
8. 5 raise / 3 call / 1 abstain (boo Rico
)
Very interesting - 6, 7 & 8 especially!
LaggyLou
Gravy says (with respect to no. 7): "Not close, LW. If there's a flush out there, you're drawing dead. The J ,
T can't be considered clean outs. Also, any T puts four to the straight on the board. I would muck this every
66
time."
At micro limits to a raise in this spot from the button? I agree with LW. There's a not insignificant chance
that I have the best hand here -- i.e., if the Button is playing AJ or AT with the Ace of hearts (I discount AK
because there was no raise). Heck, some players would play T7 or 97. KJ, KT, K9 Kx suited (not
necessarily hearts) are also possibilities, and I have outs against those.
Lost Wages
Hand 6)
For those of you who are saying raise; what hand do you put UTG on that he 3 bets the preflop raiser, calls
the cap then leads the turn. He knows you could have AK. On the flop you were hoping he had KQ. That
hope is gone on the turn. Unless he is a maniac, call. Against the right player you could fold.
spamuell
1. Raise
2. Call usually but opponent dependent, against a more aggressive micro-limit opponent I'd raise
3. Fold
4. Bet
5. Cold-Call
6. Call down with tears running down your cheeks and expect to lose. This really depends on the player
though, against many I would just fold.
7. Fold.
8. Cap.
PokerNoob
I'll take it that these are beginning microlimit opponents who may or may not know what they are doing.
1) Raise. I fear no flush until shown otherwise.
2) Crycall. If he has anything other than KJ put him in buddy list.
3) Fold. Don't get caught up in the raising war. Anytwo sometimes gets good cards too.
4) Check and see what develops. I'm in favor of slowplaying made near nut flushes.
5) 8:1 on your gutshot and runner runner broadway and flush. Take one off. I doubt anybody is going to get
off their ace if the 9 falls. Implied++
6) Call if you think he's capable of limping K9, 99 or 44 UTG. Raise otherwise. Get ready to make notes.
7) Fold to all but the most clueless players.
8) Fold if they are capable of slowplaying.
Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)
Wow, I'm looking at the more controversial hands and realizing I misread them.
6) call down (got the position reversed)
8) call (misread the river action)
BugsBunny
some of these would change with specific opponent reads, but:
1) Raise. Cheap street - have to find out if he really likes his hand. He could be bluffing, could have 1
diamond in his hand, could have a Q. You *have* to raise here. Otherwise fold - calling is the worst of the
possible options and folding at this point is absurd.
67
2) Call. He might have the KJ - although I suspect 2 pair is more likely. Folding the nut set here for 1 bet
would be very wrong.
3) Fold.
4) Bet out - they won't believe you have it anyways.
5) Fold. You have a gutshot and a possible backdoor flush to the 3rd nuts. and one of your gutshot outs is
tainted. so you have only 4 outs (counting the backdoor flush as 1).
6) Raise
7) Call - and check call the river (even if the str8 hits).
8) Call - looks like someone was slowplaying a set that turned into a boat on the river. Someone else may
have been slowplaying a flush till the river (hate people that do that) but I probably make the crying call
here - and hope it doesn't get capped.
Festus22 (19 Votes Cast So Far)
Tally to Date:
1. 19 raise / 0 other
2. 4 raise / 15 call
3. 19 fold / 0 other
4. 14 bet / 5 check
5. 6 call / 13 fold
6. 8 raise / 10 call / 1 fold
7. 6 call / 13 fold
8. 7 raise / 9 call / 2 fold / 1 abstain
Great stuff guys! Some interesting differences of opinion to be sure. I'll let this ride a bit longer before
finalizing.
chesspain
1. I only call, as there is no point in raising, since no one is going anywhere...no way I fold this yet...
2. Call
3. Fold
4. Bet
5. Call, given the implied odds if I catch my gutshot, plus the runner-runner possibility
6. I would call it down (and I wouldn't have capped the flop)
7. With only second pair and a straight draw, and given the possibility that I'm drawing dead to a flush, I
think this is an easy fold.
8. I'll take this one to mat and cap it, since I would be amazed if anyone would have been stupid enough to
be slowplaying a set through this flop and turn, or failing to raise on the turn if the J made someone twopair.
Festus22 (Tally and Hand Results)
Thanks everyone for taking part.
1. 21 raise / 1 call
I raised. All called. I folded when a 4th diamond hit the turn and it was bet and raised to me.
68
2. 4 raise / 18 call.
I flat called and surprise, surprise, UTG+1 shows K-Jo for the flopped broadway.
3. 22 fold / 0 other.
I folded. I guess this was to make me feel better since the flop had 2 10's and idiot Anytwo had J-4s, hit a
jack on the river and took it down with 2 pair.
4. 16 bet / 6 check.
I checked and BB bet, 4 called and I check-raised. My hand held up.
5. 2 raise / 7 call / 13 fold.
I folded. Turn was a 5 and river a 4, no 3-flush. BB's A-6o sucked out MP's A-J. For those who raised here,
wow!
6. 10 raise / 11 call / 1 fold
I called. River was a blank and I called again. UTG flips 9-9 for the flopped set. I raised 3 times including
PF and he still bet into me on 4th street. I read him as TPTK no goot!
7. 7 call / 15 fold
I folded after the timer was down to about 10 seconds. This was really close. Button had 6
flush and took it down.
3
for the
8. 8 raise / 11 call / 2 fold / 1 abstain
I called as did MP. MP had K-Qo (huh?) and button had Q-Js. MHIG.
On all the close ones, I chose the more conservative option. Some cases I think it was best, others maybe
not. I think there is a fine line between prudent and excessive aggression. I think I need to tweak the bar up
a bit but not TOO much.
Thanks again everyone, this was fun!
Ed Miller
1. Call. Raising is just plain wrong, IMO. You need to wait until fourth street to see if a bad card comes off.
It bothers me that 21 out of 22 of you said to raise.
2. Doesn't matter much, but you should probably just call.
3. Fold.
4. Really doesn't matter much.
5. FOLDING IS TERRIBLE! When will you people learn not to fold your hands! I would call, not raise.
6. Call. No need to raise here.. he's representing a hand that beats yours.
7. Eh.. fold I guess. Pot's small and you can be drawing dead.
8. Call. Your hand is going to be good often enough.
The masses are dead wrong on problems 1 and 5. Time to hit the books again, guys...
Vehn
Haven't read any other posts. Assuming a typical low limit online game.
#1) Call
69
#2) Tough but probably 3-bet
#3) Easy fold
#4) SOP is to bet out on the flop and reraise if raised.
#5) Easy call w/ pot odds here. Reraising is OK also but probably won't "work".
#6) Call down.
#7) Fold.
#8) Tough but most likely a fold.
Ed Miller (Notice what Vehn said on #1 and #5... *NM*)
Vehn
I don't understand the people who want to fold in #5. You are getting an overlay in pot odds. CALL. The
end.
#1 a raise is terrible on the flop but I've had too many beers to explain why exactly.
BugsBunny
#5 fine, I miscounted the pot size so I can see that there's a huge overlay there, even if you take out the
tainted outs and calling becomes easy.
But #1 - why is raising wrong? I really don't understand this one - and obviously neither do a lot of other
people.
Ed Miller
But #1 - why is raising wrong? I really don't understand this one - and obviously neither do a lot of other
people.
You tell me why raising is wrong. Ask yourself WHY you want to raise... and then evaluate whether that is
compelling or not. Look especially at how you play fourth street if you raise (and if you don't raise).
You should have a fourth street plan both when a diamond comes and when a safe card comes.
Festus22
Isn't it something like 22:1 against that someone has flopped the flush? And any single diamond is 2:1
against making their hand and there were 4 callers to me. I raised thinking I had the best hand (which I did
at the time) and also to see what the field would do.
Monotone flops seem to be quite problematic. Let's say you knew three of your opponents had 2 diamonds
and the flop comes down with 2 diamonds. Would you not want to be value raising since they are a dog
against your aces? It's pretty much the same situation here except it's 3 on the board and 1 in 3 hands. Yes,
there is that 22:1 chance your already toast but that it pretty insignificant. Please explain why value raising
is not correct.
Lost Wages
Ask yourself WHY you want to raise
I raise for value. I'm getting 5 callers to my raise so I only have to be ahead 17% of the time. Plus I want to
charge anyone drawing to a big dimond.
You should have a fourth street plan both when a diamond comes and when a safe card comes.
A diamond comes, I'm done. A non-diamond comes I bet. A non-diamond will come 79% of the time.
70
spamuell
When I read the post I nearly said call and raise if the turn is safe, knowing that you likely have the best
hand. My thoughts then were:
1. No one is folding to your raise here, and if a diamond falls you have to lay down on the turn so why put
in extra money now when you can get more out of people on the turn when you likely have the best hand?
2. If you just call and the turn is a blank, people will be getting worse odds to draw to a flush if you make it
2 bets to them on the turn.
3. Just calling the flop means its likelier that you will be able to raise the turn and make it 2 bets, whereas if
you raise here it may very well get checked to you on the turn.
4. With all these callers, it's the flush draw that is getting the most value on a raise.
5. If things start getting hot on the turn, you have position and can get out without losing too much.
6. You might already be beat (I don't think this is a good enough reason for not raising though).
I decided to read everyone else's responses first though, and (at the time) every single person had said raise.
I thought it through and decided to write raise. My thoughts at the time were:
1. If you just call and the turn is a blank, you haven't represented any strength in just calling the flop, and if
there is a bet and a raise to you, you won't know what to do. If you raise the flop and the same action
occurs, you have a much clearer idea that you're beat.
2. You likely have the best hand, get the money in while you do.
3. Given all the callers, it's likely that several diamonds are out, diminishing the chances of someone hitting
their flush on the turn.
4. Although a flush draw will be getting value from a raise on the flop, this is also +EV for you, as you
make money all the times the flush doesn't get there from the flush draw(s) and all those one pair hands.
5. You have aces.
6. Raising is fun.
OK, so my gut said raise, then my head said call, then everyone else wrote raise and I wrote raise, then MK,
vehn and chesspain said call, then my head expoloded in confusion.
Which reasons did I not give? Which of my reasons aren't good enough?
GuyOnTilt
Disclaimer: As per a personal request, I have not read any other posts in this thread. So sorry if I say
something that's already been covered.
#1) This is definitely a calling situation. Raising here would definitely be wrong, and folding would as well.
If a blank falls on the turn, I'll raise.
#2) I just call on the river.
#3) Uhhh...this is an easy fold. Not much of a question on this one.
#4) Doesn't matter. Mix it up depending on your opponents' tendencies.
#5) Getting 17.5:2, I'd definitely at least call here. If MP's flop raise doesn't mean 2-pair or better, then you
could consider 3-betting for the free card, but I don't think I like it too much. I'd cold-call.
#6) Call down.
#7) Muck, muck, muck.
#8) I muck. You're getting 11.5:2, and you're not closing the action. There aren't enough Jacks to go around,
so one of the raisers has something other than trips. I'd muck it.
71
Okay, now I'm going to read the results!
GoT
Ed Miller
Isn't it something like 22:1 against that someone has flopped the flush?
I don't know where that number came from, but I am almost certain that it is wrong.
And any single diamond is 2:1 against making their hand and there were 4 callers to me. I raised thinking
I had the best hand (which I did at the time) and also to see what the field would do.
What does "seeing what the field will do" gain you? Are you planning to make a big laydown in this
enormous pot??? Someone who 3-bets you could easily just have a pair and the ace of trump.
Monotone flops seem to be quite problematic. Let's say you knew three of your opponents had 2 diamonds
and the flop comes down with 2 diamonds. Would you not want to be value raising since they are a dog
against your aces? It's pretty much the same situation here except it's 3 on the board and 1 in 3 hands. Yes,
there is that 22:1 chance your already toast but that it pretty insignificant. Please explain why value
raising is not correct.
You guys are making several mistakes.
Mistake #1) You are implicitly assuming that raising on the flop will not change how the action goes down
on the turn. This is almost certainly not true. This is the key mistake (and the reason you guys aren't seeing
why calling is correct).
Mistake #2) You guys are not adjusting your gameplan to the enormous size of the pot.
Mistake #3) You are assuming that the only way you can lose this hand is to a flush.
Mistake #4) You are underestimating the chance that someone flopped a flush. (I'm not saying it's
enormous... I'm just saying that you guys are underestimating it).
Ed Miller
I raise for value. I'm getting 5 callers to my raise so I only have to be ahead 17% of the time. Plus I want to
charge anyone drawing to a big dimond.
This line of thought is totally and completely wrong. You tell me why. Maybe reading this will help a little.
Just as a hint, there is a problem both with your 17% number and with your idea to "charge big diamonds."
A diamond comes, I'm done. A non-diamond comes I bet. A non-diamond will come 79% of the time.
What if your action on the turn went more like, "A diamond comes, I'm done and saved a bet by not raising
on the flop. A non-diamond comes, I raise the guy that bet into me."
ggano
After reading these forums for a while, my gut instinct in situations like this is now to raise on the flop to
gain information. (I'm not very good at doing this in an actual game yet, but at least this is now my reaction
to posts most of the time, and it usually turns out to be the consensus answer.) If it gets re-raised, then you
can safely assume that somebody has you beat. So now I'm trying to figure out why that's the wrong thing to
do in this case.
Maybe it wouldn't really tell you anything, because a made flush would likely not re-raise? Maybe you want
to try to get people out if a non-diamond comes on the turn, so you don't want to tie people to the pot?
Maybe the odds of someone already having a set are too high? Maybe you want to represent a flush if
72
another diamond comes? That's about all I can come up with, and none of them look very promising.
In answer to your question on my plan if I raise the flop: If I get re-raised, then I slow down. Otherwise, if a
diamond comes on the turn I slow down, if not I bet.
It seems like you're very likely to have the best hand now, and the favorite to have the best hand at
showdown too, so you raise both for value and for information. The only thing I'm worried about is the
already-made flush, which is a possibility but a small one. I've thought it through and can't figure out where
I've gone horribly wrong - can you enlighten us?
Ed Miller
I've thought it through and can't figure out where I've gone horribly wrong - can you enlighten us?
Think about how your flop raise affects what goes down on the turn.
I will say this. If there were no betting to be done after the flop, raising would probably be correct. But
since bets go in on the turn and river, raising is very wrong. That is, you probably do get some "value" for
your flop raise. The question is, "how much value do I get?" and "could I get more value later on?"
Ed Miller
1. No one is folding to your raise here, and if a diamond falls you have to lay down on the turn so why put
in extra money now when you can get more out of people on the turn when you likely have the best hand?
2. If you just call and the turn is a blank, people will be getting worse odds to draw to a flush if you make it
2 bets to them on the turn.
3. Just calling the flop means its likelier that you will be able to raise the turn and make it 2 bets, whereas
if you raise here it may very well get checked to you on the turn.
4. With all these callers, it's the flush draw that is getting the most value on a raise.
5. If things start getting hot on the turn, you have position and can get out without losing too much.
6. You might already be beat (I don't think this is a good enough reason for not raising though).
This is winning poker thought.
2. You likely have the best hand, get the money in while you do.
3. Given all the callers, it's likely that several diamonds are out, diminishing the chances of someone
hitting their flush on the turn.
5. You have aces.
6. Raising is fun.
This is not.
1. If you just call and the turn is a blank, you haven't represented any strength in just calling the flop, and
if there is a bet and a raise to you, you won't know what to do. If you raise the flop and the same action
occurs, you have a much clearer idea that you're beat.
You will probably have to call down in this situation... so yes, this is a small fly in the ointment (but notice,
you pay no more this way than you would if you had raised the turn). Point is, pot is huge, so you probably
aren't laying down no matter what unless you get some iron-clad info that you are beat.
4. Although a flush draw will be getting value from a raise on the flop, this is also +EV for you, as you
make money all the times the flush doesn't get there from the flush draw(s) and all those one pair hands.
You probably do get value from the flop raise. The questions to ask (as you already did) are, "how much
value do I get?" and "can I get more value later?"
Lost Wages
OK, the clouds in my brain are beginning to part but it's still not clear to me when you should be raising the
flop and when you should be waiting until the turn. Please help.
73
Rico Suave
Hey Major:
Unlike Lost Wages, the clouds have yet to clear and I am still in the fog. I can definitely see value in
arguements for both a call and a raise, I just do not see how the call is so much better than raise.
A couple of thoughts about some of the comments that have already been made. Raising the turn is a better
option than raising the flop if you are concerned about reducing the pot odds offered to callers. Raising the
flop will give callers in the neighborhood of 31:1 or greater, and raising the turn instead (assuming a non
diamond comes and the sb bets out again) will give callers 19:1 or greater. So while you definitely help cut
their odds, everyone is pretty much correct in calling a turn raise with as little as pocket 2s. And you have
done little to protect your hand. What do you do if the sb 3-bets?
I understand that you really do not want to put in a bunch of $ if another falls. So waiting to see the turn
has some merit. But the likelihood of a falling on the river is the same (basically) as one falling on the
river. So if you do not want to raise the flop b/c you fear the , why would you want to raise the turn if a
non diamond hits? You are in the same boat as on the flop and, as I said above, everyone would be correct
in calling a turn raise, and so you have done little to protect your hand.
Now as I am typing this, I do see one advantage to raising the turn (if a blank falls) that I did not see earlier.
A turn raise will look very much like a slow played flopped flush and that may provide enough incentive for
gutshots and pairs to lay down (thinking they are drawing dead).
Anyway, great thread and great discussion. I really helps when you and other experienced players share
your thoughts.
BugsBunny
He - I'm nuts and I'll tell you why.
There was a lot of action preflop - nobody was betting diamonds at that point (well they may have happened
to have diamonds but that's different). I raise the flop for information and also to set up the turn, because if I
raise the flop and all call and it's checked around to me on the turn I bet out - **whether a diamond hits or
not**.
Why? Well - like you said the pot is huge. I figure that, if the 4th diamond hits, there's about an 11% chance
that NOBODY has a diamond in their hand. In that case I'm likely to take the pot down right there (I've had
people lay down sets and 2 pair to this play (although usually I prefer fewer opponents, but usually the pot
isn't this big either)- and it doesn't have to work often to be worth it)
Now if I raise the flop and then the 4th diamond hits and someone bets out in front of me then I'm done - I'll
lay it down (unless the 4th diamond is the A).
I suspect that nobody with a made hand will lay it down unless the 4th diamond hits.
Everyone appears ready to concede the pot if the 4th diamond hits on the turn - I'm not ready to make that
concession - the pots too big and by raising the flop I help myself if that happens.
If it doesn't happen then I'm in better shape as well (informationally). Again if someone leads into me on 4th
street (and a non-diamond hits), after the strength I've shown throughout, I'd feel better about folding although I may call down depending on the exact card etc. And if it's checked to me I still bet out (usually A K might slow me down since there's a good possibilty SB has KK)
I'm rambling at this point so I'll stop for the moment. I'll just close by saying, I may already be beat and be
drawing almost dead. But I want to give myself a chance to win *even if the diamond hits*, as I'm not
willing to concede that pot even at that point unless I'm forced to.
74
BugsBunny
The biggest difference beteen raising the flop and raising the turn is the size of the bet, both in absolute
terms and in relation to the pot.
When you raise the turn you're raising a full-size bet, when you raise the flop it's only a SB - so the raise is
equal to 1 full-size bet (BB).
If you don't raise the flop but only call and then raise the turn then the raise is a larger percentage of the pot
then it would be if you had raised the flop.
In a lot of cases people won't call a full-size raise where they would a flop raise. It's also possible that they
would be wrong to call the full-size raise, where it would be correct to call the flop raise.
And, it's also possible that keeping the pot smaller (by not raising the flop) it would be incorrect for
someone to call the turn raise, where it would be correct for them to call it if you had raised the flop (due to
the ratio of the bet size to the pot size).
That's the brief version
Ed Miller
On the flop, there are two cards to come. On the turn, there is only one card to come. You are twice as
likely to be drawn out on from the flop on as you are from the turn on(presuming a non-diamond hits).
Joe Tall
Per request, I've been asked to respond.
I am honest and have read the arguement in this thread.
I am honest and will reply with my gut reaction.
I am honest and will admit I'll add thoughts that are mostlikely influenced by this arguement.
1. Wow, that's a lot of preflop action and a helluva flop, I love hold'em. I must say it's a close descison and I
wish I had better player reads to interpet the UTG raise and the SB cap. I think I raise if I can get everyone
to check to me on the turn. If not I call and raise when a blank hits. This becomes a online/live dynamic for
me as when I play live, I get checked to often. I also like raising as if the SB 3-bets I can norrow him down
to A or QQ (I know K K is not out of the question); let's not forget he capped preflop.
2. Check-raised twice, that sucks, you'll be right often enough to call with this size pot.
3. Fold, not sure why this one is in here.
4. Bet and raise and re-raise, and re-re-re-raise...oh, this in online, 4-bet cap, then just cap it.
5. Call. In the right game, live (check to on the turn), I might even 3-bet depending on my read of the MP
raiser. It's likely that MP could have 2 s.
6. Call down mode.
7. That's one fugly turn card. Fold the pot is small and you could easily be drawing dead.
8. Bleh, open-limping w/AJo in EP. Looks messy to me, calling 2-cold here sucks and there many hands
that have you smoked in addition to the flop check-through, fold.
Peace,
Joe Tall
75
Joe Tall
I understand major's arguement. However, I think it's closer than "very wrong" to raise the flop.
I do think major's points need to be understood as they are a very important thought process that will help
get to a higher level of play.
I know that blinding saying 'raise' is wrong.
I'm leaving it at that.
Festus22
I was wondering when you were going to pipe up on this thread.
You pretty much went on the side of the "experts" on the more controversial ones, that being #1 and #5
although I'm surprised you folded #8. I actually took that one down with a better kicker. You are getting 6:1
on the call and I think you're good more than 17% of the time.
Thanks for chiming in.
Joe Tall
I was wondering when you were going to pipe up on this thread.
I actually started to answer when you first posted it, but was pulled away from my CPU and then had to shut
down, never getting back to it, so I know what my first answers were.
although I'm surprised you folded #8. I actually took that one down with a better kicker. You are getting
6:1 on the call and I think you're good more than 17% of the time.
You are correct, the call would be good with that pot size. My thoughts get clouded as I don't play AJo
UTG for a limp, so I don't know how I would have played it as my open raise would change the hand's
dynamic completely. Excuse my reply there.
You pretty much went on the side of the "experts" on the more controversial ones, that being #1 and #5
#5 was easy and if I held the right image vs the right opponents, I'd 3-bet even.
#1 I'm not adament about calling and I don't think it's as clean as majorkong states. In fact, I think his initial
thoughts are close then as the thread contiues he is driving home his point (god bless him) which I feel
needs to be done because the thought process is an important one.
Nice post and well done Fes!
ggano
Well I've thought about it and I can't come up with an answer. You're saying that you'll get more money into
the pot if you raise after the turn than if you raise after the flop, is that right? So you're essentially slowplaying here? That seems wrong.
All these questions without answers are making this sound more and more like a prank instead of helpful
advice.
Ed Miller
It's been said in several places in this thread, but I'll say it again.
On the flop, your hand is very vulnerable. It's hard to tell exactly how often you will lose this hand, but it's
probably at least 50% of the time. 35% of the time, another diamond will come which will sink you for sure.
Also, someone could spike trips, make two pair, etc. to beat you.
76
If you raise, your raise is for "value" but just barely. Since your chance of losing the hand is so high at this
point, you are better off calling and seeing the turn card.
If the turn card is unfavorable, you can not raise (or even fold, as our hero did in the real hand). If the turn
card is favorable, get your raise in at that point when you have a much bigger edge (because there is only
one more card to come).
Is that clear?
Ed Miller
You are getting 6:1 on the call and I think you're good more than 17% of the time.
Ya.. I don't understand why Vehn, GoT, JT, and company wanted to fold in #8. You are getting like 6-to-1
to call. It kinda looks like you might be beat... but it don't look 6-to-1 against you.
ggano
Thanks for your direct response, I appreciate it. If it's been mentioned before in this thread, it obviously
went over my head, and even this post is right about at scalp level for me. I guess the crucial factor is that if
you raise on the flop then you won't be able to raise on the turn, because nobody will bet into you. So on the
turn you'll only be able to extract one bet (if a non-diamond comes). So if you're raising for value, then the
assumption is that your choice is to either raise on the flop or on the turn, but not both, right? And the latter
is both more valuable and safer (because you can skip the raise if a diamond falls).
Ed Miller (Correct)
Obviously, sometimes you raise the flop, and then you get to raise the turn as well. And sometimes you
don't raise the flop, but they check to you on the turn anyway.
But raising the flop doesn't give you much value and makes it significantly less likely that you will be able
to take advantage of the turn action.
GuyOnTilt
Ya.. I don't understand why Vehn, GoT, JT, and company wanted to fold in #8. You are getting like 6-to-1
to call. It kinda looks like you might be beat... but it don't look 6-to-1 against you.
Since there's 2 raisers after your bet, one of them has something other than trips. There just aren't enough
Jacks to go around. So 6:1 not closing the action here just isn't enough for me to call unless one of your
opponents is retarded and likes to run insane river bluffs. I don't think someone check-3-bets this river
without at least a strong Jack (which is still stupid), so the question is whether the first raiser would make
that play 16% of the time on a bluff.
Again, remember that they can't both have trips.
I still like folding on #8.
GoT
CrackerZack
The key here is the stakes. My GF plays .50/1.00 on party and 1/2 on party and would never ever lay this
down, and she's right. You're expecting them to have big hands, and usually so am I. She's expecting them
to turn over something and jacks for 2 pair because they're retarded. Usually, she's right in these situations. I
try to explain that as you move up, this doesn't happen, but it does at micro-stakes.
As for #1, I'd like to wait to raise because I'm scared of the turn, but raising on the flop isn't horrible, but
less profitable or a bit more losing (if any raise is losing) than waiting.
Ed Miller
77
I try to explain that as you move up, this doesn't happen, but it does at micro-stakes.
It happens even when you move up. Too many people behave like freak shows to lay down trips in this spot,
I think.
It's Time for Quiz #3!!!
Festus22
Another round of tantilizing trinkets:
1. 9 9 UTG+1. UTG limps, I limp as does LMP, CO and button, SB folds, BB raises, all call.
Flop [J 8 2 ]. BB bets, UTG calls. Action?
78
2. A
4
in EMP. First 3 fold to you. Action?
3. Black 8-8 on the button. UTG+2 and MP limp, I limp, SB folds, BB checks.
Flop [K 8 3 ]. BB bets, UTG+2 folds, MP raises, I 3-bet, BB folds, MP caps, I call.
Turn 5 . MP bets, I raise, MP calls.
River 4 . MP checks, I bet, MP check-raises. Action?
4. A 3 in MP. UTG limps, EMP limps, I limp, button limps, both blinds in.
Flop [A 9 3 ]. Checked to me, I bet, button calls, SB calls, BB folds, UTG check-raises, EMP
folds, I 3-bet, button, SB and UTG call.
Turn 10 . SB checks, UTG bets. Action?
5. 8-2o in the BB. 5 limpers including the SB. I pondered raising but decided to just check to conceal my
hand.
Flop [8-7-3 rainbow]. SB bets. Action?
6. A Q in LMP. UTG+1 limps, MP limps, I raise, folded to blinds, both call as do UTG+1 and MP.
Flop [Q Q 9 ]. Checked to MP who bets. Action?
spamuell
Yay! I love your quizzes Festus, I learnt a lot from the last one. These are quite hard questions, but I'll give
it a shot.
1. I would have raised pre-flop, but fold.
2. Limp usually, depending if I think people will limp after me (at the tables I play at, they usually will).
This question really depends on table texture.
3. Call. Smells like MP has a strong hand, but AKd is unlikely because of the PF action, as is KK, 76 seems
impossible, the only semi-sane hand I can see that beats you is K3d. But, the only hand I can see that he
could have played like this and you beat is 33, and he probably would not have played this way. If he is
ahead, he will probably cap, so just call.
4. Raise, the pot is big, UTG could easily have Ax and outdraw you, this isn't the time to get cute.
5. Raise if you think he'd bet a 7 or a 3 here, this seems the perfect opportunity to protect your vulnerable
top pair.
6. Raise, you raised PF, they expect you to raise here. If you just call here and raise the turn, you could kill
your action.
fluff
Another very intersting set of hands!
My answers:
1) Raise. See how much BB likes his hand. Call a 3-bet and fold turn to a bet if unimproved. Absent 3 bet,
and non-scary turn and river, you can call down.
2) Limp. You're playing this for the flush still, so raising will reduce your implied odds.
3) Call. For 1 more bet I've got to see this. He limped PF, but capped rainbow flop, then check-raised river
when 3rd hit? Not many hands play that way. Maybe KQ ?
4) Call if you think SB is gonna call 1 more, raise if you think he's gonna drop out anyway. You likely have
79
the very best hand here, and if not, you have quite a few outs to make it on the river. (Edit: For the purpose
of tallying this quiz, you can put me down as raise, since I'm slightly leaning to that).
5) Raise. Try to get weak overcards, flush draws, gutshot draws out. With top pair, bad kicker I need to
either get as few people to come along as possible, or be shown resistance to back down. Especially on a
flop that is unlikely to have hit anyone else.
6) Raise. Not a big fan of slowplaying trips. Sets maybe, but not trips.
Trix
1. Raise in a tight game, call in a loose-passive game.
Flop: Fold, if im ahead, there are too many cards I dont wanna see.
2. fold
3.Raise if I feel I might get rid of blinds this way.
River: Call.
4.Raise
5. Raise ( you have the bestest hand !)(or fold, no idea...)
6. Raise (else you feel like an idiot when a five falls on the turn and someone goes berzerk with his pock
fives...been there too much. No slowplay with pair on board trips)
Nate tha' Great
1. I'd raise before the flop and fold on the flop.
If there were no cold caller I'd consider a raise. With the cold caller ... way too messy.
2. Fold.
3. I'd raise before the flop.
On the river, I call. Looks like he has K
J
or something.
4. I call. I don't know if I have UTG beat, but I want to keep SB and Button around to give the both of us
equity.
5. Raise.
6. Raise.
Raiser
1. Call. You're getting 14:1 on your 22:1 shot with huge implied odds. You want the rest to call, so I
wouldn't raise here.
2. Fold.
3. Call. But I'm a river wimp. You can't fold, IMO. There's too much in the pot.
4. Raise. Huge hand, huge draw.
5. Raise to knock out overcards.
6. Raise. Slow playing trips (especially on a coordinated board) is asking for trouble.
Lost Wages
1. Call, getting 16:1.
2. Limp, table dependent though.
3. Reraise, don't fear a backdoor flush, he liked his hand on the flop.
80
4. Raise, you have a monster.
5. Fold, your hand is junk.
6. Raise, no one will believe you anyway.
spamuell
I have noticed a couple of replies advocating a call here because you're getting 16:1 on your 22.5:1 shot, but
the implied odds should make up for this. Firstly, you don't know that the implied odds will make up for
this.
Secondly, and much more importantly, you don't have the 9 ! How can you even consider calling here
when your trips might make someone else a flush (or a straight)? Consider the reverse implied odds on that.
I don't like raising here either, because I don't think you've got the best hand, but calling in hope of spiking a
9 is a bad play.
Festus22 (Early Results)
As usual, looks like we agree on some and disagree (to put it mildly) on some others. 10 votes cast so far:
1. 4 fold / 2 call / 4 raise
2. 6 fold / 4 call
3. 9 call / 1 raise
4. 3 call / 7 raise
5. 3 fold / 7 raise
6. 10 raise
LaggyLou
1. I see this as a raise or fold situation. I would lean toward folding with a bet and a call, especially with a
pre-flop raise from the BB UNLESS I have a note on him that he'll pop from the blinds with AK or less.
2. I fold. I'm not good enough yet to want to play A4s out of position in anything but a family pot.
3. Call. You're ahead enough of the time here that a call is warranted. K3 diamond or AK diamond is likely,
but the pot is big and he could have K3o or K4s (non-diamond).
4. Raise. You might be up against AT, but it might also be T9s. Perhaps TT, but if so what're you gonna do?
Even if you're behind you have outs, and if you're popped back then you can throw it away if you miss the
flush, and it only cost an extra bet.
5. Raise.
6. Raise.
el_grande
Not sure I understand raising #5 in a microlimit game.
You will get a coldcaller or two most of the time, and SB is at least going to call.
There will be overcards coming later, and if not, there will be a possible straight on board that you can't
make.
Essentially the only way you are going to take this pot (barring a miracle card) is if you overplay your 82o
the whole way and get away with it.
I don't like the chances of that.
LaggyLou
Assuming that the SB has 2d or 3d pair and an overcard, and that the coldcallers also have overcards, then
you are a favorite to win with one coldcaller (and are getting 2-1 on your bets, not counting the $$ in the
81
pot) and less than a 2-1 dog to win with two coldcallers (and are getting 3-1 on your bets, not counting the
$$ in the pot). Factor in that some folks just can't get away from two overcards that include an ace and you
might have some implied odds as well. That and the $$ in the pot make up for those times where someone
else has an 8 or an overpair, in my view.
BugsBunny
1) You're in a raise or fold situation. I'd probably fold in this case. You have no spades, an overcard on the
board, and a preflop raiser betting out.
2) Depending on game texture probably open limp.
3) MP didn't raise before the flop so I don't put him on KK. With his raise on the flop he probably either has
Kx or 33. Unless you know he's an any K player then the Kx is probably suited. At this point he either has a
set, 2 pair, or the flush. c/r is a strong move. I call and hope it's not Kxd. I think the chances of him having
pulled the flush are a little too strong to reraise here, although it's more likely you'll see 2 pair.
4) Raise
5) Raise
6) Call and then go for the raise on the turn if no flush/8/K card hits. Go for the overcalls on the flop, the
str8 and flush draws are staying anyways.
MortalNuts
1. Raise. I would usually raise PF as well.
2. Limp, assuming you're at a typical micro table. If I can't limp in MP with Axs, I find another table.
3. If MP is a reasonable player, I'd call, and expect to be shown something like KdTd; if he's an idiot, I
might raise. Absent a read one way or the other, I call.
4. Raise.
5. I'd fold, but only because I'm a wuss. (And because I dislike playing a trashy hand, out of position, that's
vulnerable to pretty much every overcard, when there are connecting cards on board.)
6. Raise. Anyone with a Q, or a straight or flush draw, will call two bets; anyone without any of those was
probably going to fold anyway.
TheRake
Festus,
1.) BB could be betting overcards....Raise then proceed with caution
2.) I limp if the table conditions are right.
3.) I call...Looks like MP has Kd3d, but don't have enough confidence in my read to not call 1 more bet.
4.) Raise..even if you are beat on the turn you have outs
5.) Fold - Not clear why some are raising - This hand is $hit
6.) guess I'll go with a Raise. I like getting my money in as a favorite. I can see why a smooth call would be
ok here too.
spamuell
1.) BB could be betting overcards....Raise then proceed with caution
82
Yes, the BB could be raising overcards. He could also have AA/KK/QQ/AJ. He raised from the BB and
then bet a flop which has an overcard to my pair and 2 of one suit on board, and someone called. I'm scared.
5.) Fold - Not clear why some are raising - This hand is $hit
So an underpair to the top card on a co-ordinated board with a raise pre-flop from the BB and a bettor and a
caller on the flop is a good time to raise, but top pair on a raggedy board when you have a good chance of
getting heads up in position and forcing out overcards is "$hit"? Why?
Having said that, in hand 2, if the SB was tight/passive I would just muck it.
TheRake
Answer this...If someone raised from the BB with AK and got this flop would they check? What do you
think most people would do? I am guessing most people would auto bet after they raised pre-flop. Add to
that the fact that this pot now has 15 bets in it and my thinking is that raising gives me the best chance to
win. If it is too scary to raise I guess 9's should just be folded.
Hand 5
Basically what is the point? Seems like throwing money away. You have a medium pair with no kicker in a
small pot you have not volentarily put any money into. I really don't see the value.
spamuell
If someone raised from the BB with AK and got this flop would they check?
No. But if they raised from the BB with AA/KK/QQ, they would also play the same way. Just using
Bayesian probability, we can say it's 3:2 he has a big pair, if AA/KK/AK/QQ are the only hands he'd raise
from the blinds. Of course, we don't know that they are, some players would raise with less, some only with
big pairs. But, add in that there is a caller, there are still people left to act behind you and that you don't
have the 9 of spades, I think that you fold here. Raising is better than calling here though.
Hand 5
Basically what is the point?
Maybe you're right. I wasn't really considering that you have 4 opponents to act behind you, at least one of
whom is very likely to cold call. If there was a smaller field, or it was guaranteed that I could get this HU
with the SB, I would raise here.
Festus22 (The Latest)
1. 13 fold / 2 call / 8 raise
2. 14 fold / 9 call
3. 21 call / 2 raise
4. 5 call / 18 raise
5. 12 fold / 1 call / 10 fold
6. 1 call / 22 raise
Very, very interesting. I'll let it ride for a bit yet, then post results. I'm very surprised by 1 and 5.
Joe Tall
1. I would have raised before the flop. This would have made this decision easier, I feel. Depending on the
opponent I raise this flop.
2. Table dependant. I think I raise. I'm not folding. I open-limp now in this position also.
3. Call.
83
4. Call, you could be behind and there is no reason to knock out the other 2 callers here.
5. It's a close decision. Call, looking to improve on the turn.
6. Raise. Trips can be a vulnerable hand on a board like this.
Festus22 (What I Did / Hand Results)
Hopefully we'll get a few more hits but here's how it went:
1. I folded. With a BB PF raise, then a flop bet and call and 3 players yet to act, I really didn't like this
hand. I agree I should have raised this PF. BB's Q-Q held up.
2. I limped. At the typical loose, passive micro table, I think A-xs is playable from anywhere. Just gotta
tread lightly when that ace flops.
3. I hit the call button with warp speed. The more I thought about it though, I think raising might have been
better. Remember, MP CAPPED the flop. What did he have that he didn't raise PF yet liked enough to cap
given that drawless board? 2-pair or 3-3 come to mind. MAYBE Kd-Qd or Kd-3d but isn't that seeing
monsters? Maybe calling was still correct but I think it was closer than I was thinking when I played the
hand. MP had K 8 for a rather overplayed top 2 pair.
4. I called because I wanted overcalls. I thought I was ahead at that point but wasn't overly confident. The
button called and the SB folded. River was the 7 . UTG bet again and I called. He showed A 9 for a
better 2 pair.
5. I folded. This type of garbage still gives me trouble. I thought I recall David Sklansky posting somewhere
about a hand similar to this basically stating that although you may be ahead here, the odds are you're not
going to be by the river so it's correct to fold. Don't quote me on that because I may be taking it out of
context. Anyway, SB got 3 callers. Turn and river were both 10's and the CO took it down with 10-9s.
6. I raised. Everyone, including MP, folded. DOH! I guess it's better to win a small pot than to lose a big
one.
Thanks to all for participating. And I wouldn't mind some discussion of the more controversial hands
especially since we're so divergent in some or our opinions.
Ed Miller
The only hand I feel really strongly about here is hand 5. I think you clearly should fold. Continuing with
this hand is just giving money away, IMO.
Nate tha' Great
Would you change your answer at all if its a shorthanded game, and the limpers are likely to have slightly
worse hands?
I'm making this sort of raise routinely in 6-max, but don't really have a sense whether it's profitable or not.
Ed Miller
Sure.. if it's a shorthanded game with fewer limpers, then raising is fine. But in a full game with four players
yet to act, a medium-sized pair with no kicker and no real hope for improvement, and an unraised pot... this
is about as clear a fold as you'll ever have with top pair.
84
Another Installment from the Quizmeister
Festus22
Yet another round of thought provoking holdem conundrums (I always wanted to use that word in a
sentence).
All hands are from Party 0.5/1 with no decent reads (a liability of multi-tabling
).
Hand 1
A J UTG+2. I open-raise, EMP 3-bets, SB calls, BB calls, I call.
Flop J 10 8 . SB checks, BB bets, I raise, EMP 3-bets, SB folds, BB caps. Action?
Hand 2
10 10
Hand 3
on the button. Folded to LMP who limps, CO raises. Action?
85
Very next hand after Hand 2.
A K in the CO. Folded to MP who open raises. LMP 3-bets. Action?
Hand 4
K 10 UTG. I limp, MP limps, CO limps, button limps, SB completes, BB checks.
Flop [Q J 6 ]. Blinds check, I bet, MP folds, CO calls, button calls, SB calls, BB calls.
Turn 9 . SB checks, BB checks, I bet, CO folds, button raises, SB folds, BB check-raise 3-bets. Action?
Hand 5
8 8 on the button. UTG limps, MP limps, CO limps, I limp, both blinds play.
Flop [A 6 5 ]. Checked to the CO who bets. Action?
Hand 6
Q Q in the CO. EMP open limps, LMP calls, I raise, BB calls, all call.
Flop [10 9 5 ]. BB checks, EMP bets, LMP calls, I raise, BB folds, EMP calls, LMP calls.
Turn 2 . EMP bets, LMP calls, I raise, EMP calls, LMP calls.
River 5 . EMP bets, LMP raises. Action?
blackaces13
1. Probably fold. Looks like you're drawing extremely thin and the hand can/will get mighty expensive.
2. Call. I play TT pretty meekly. If the flop doesn't contain an A or K and the CO bet into me I'd raise and
see how he handled it. I'd put him on AK until he showed me different with a 3-bet or by leading into me on
the turn.
3. Cap it.
4. Call it down, you can't thow away the nut-straight but there's an excellent chance you're already dead.
Actually, maybe you woulnd't lose much by folding but when its close I always call cause callers sleep
better than folders.
5. Raise/fold, I'd opt for the latter here. Someone usually has the ace in .5/1 and you may not gain much info
and be compelled to call down because the guy with AKs check called the whole way.
6. Here's another call I'd make where a good case can be made for folding. I make a lot of river calls in
these .5/1 games as I'm sure everyone does, what can you do?
Man that all looks really loose/passive doesn't it? Ah well, tis the nature of .5/1. At least that's what I tell
myself.
Joe Tall
1. fold, your not going to be good here with this much flop action. If the BB does'nt have you beat w/set or
2-pair, EMP's overpair does.
2. 3-bet, CO could have many hands that he is trying to isolate with. Leverage your position and knock out
the blinds.
3. Well, what was the showdown in hand 2? Is the CO, now LMP, a LAG, a maniac? More information here
is needed.
4. C/R 3-bet on the turn, I think you can fold.
5. You can probably fold unless this is the CO from the other hand and you think he's taking a stab at it,
then raise.
86
6. Bleh, after all that action the LMP endured, you can probably fold. Party-LL, eh? Maybe a call would be
good.
sthief09
1: I'm folding the flop here. There's no guarantee an A or a J is clean, and if I do hit one and miss, I'm in
trouble
2: 3-bet
3: borderline 3-bet or cap. I generally like to cap with position, but I'd like to see if MP caps. I think I'd cap
it to improve my chances of winning the pot, especially if either of the two raises light
4: small pot. a check-raise 3-bet usually means death, and you have no outs to improve. I make a tough
laydown here
5: I tend to be overly aggressive, and my instincts tell me to fold, so I don't think it would be too weak-tight
to give up this small pot
6: ugh I call for 2 reasons. one, the pot is big, and two, because I now have queens-up. this is obviously a
terrible situation but I think you have to call, even though you aren't even closing the action. the pot just
seems too big, and you might've rivered anyone with 2 pair. the fact that LMP never called more than one
bet at a time screams 5.
good questions
Trix
1) Fold, EMP looks like an overpair and BB like two-pair or better. The least he can have is an OESD.
2) 3Bet, you are ahead of the LP raising hand range.
3) Cap, I think you will win your share against an MP raise and a LMP 3bet.
4) Fold, one of them probably have the flush.
5) Fold, I dont think you will win often enough to raise here. When you are ahead, you will be outdrawn
often and when behind you have close to no chance of improving.
6) Fold, I think he has 5 ,X
sfer
Hand 1: Fold. Everyone's telling you that you're beat and you're not going to feel good about pretty much
any card that comes on the turn.
Hand 2: 3-bet. I don't think this one is close unless the CO is a rock.
Hand 3: Cap.
Hand 4: Ugh. I hate these situations. I would really want to showdown but the checkraise stinks of a flush.
Fold.
Hand 5: Fold. Reads are important here. There's definitely a late position autobettor type on Party, but
without know if the CO is one, I'd fold.
Hand 6: I hate the friggin' stop n' go. Looks like you're beat again. How fishy is LMP and how capable is
s/he of making a move here? EMP hasn't 3-bet once so I'm leaning toward calling here.
Sam T.
Hand One: Fold. You may be behind, and even if you're not there are some folks with draws they love.
Your outs are dirty.
Hand Two: Reraise. Get heads-up with CO.
87
Hand Three: Cap it. You've got a great hand and position.
Hand Four: Crying call. You could be looking at a flush, but a lower straight or trips is entirely possible.
Hand Five: Fold. Do you really want to be heads up with two outs, and a tiny pot?
Hand Six: Call. Could be trips, but could also be a lower two pair.
Shawsy
Here's my stab:
1. Fold. I don't like playing AJo from an early position at a full table much anyway. I often lay this down
preflop, particularly at an aggressive table. Raising doesn't thin the field enough for this hand at the micro
limits - or maybe my raises don't get the respect required to thin the field.
2. 3-bet.
3. Cap.
4. Fold. I don't often play KTs under the gun either. Unless you hit a great board, (flushes with the ace on
board, or hits the nut straight with a rainbow board etc..) it's a difficult hand to play out of position.
5. Depending on my opponents, I might actually play along for a bet on this flop. I call, but only if I don't
expect check raises from the blinds or early and mid position players. And better yet, if I expect them to call
one bet as well since the implied odds improve. If an 8 slides off at the turn, you are probably ahead unless
there is a wonky str8 and even then you have outs to the boat. If a 7 slides off, you have an OESD. If neither
of these happen, then you can fold the turn in good conscience. If you think you can see one more card for
only one small bet, then I don't see the harm in giving this hand a chance.
6. I make a crying call given the size of the pot. I think there are odds enough to justify it, and I don't think
EMP is going to raise the river after bet/calling on the other streets. You might be up against A5s, but you
could also be up against some other 2-pair hand.
Nice quiz. Gets you thinking.
Raiser
Hand #1: Fold - looks like a made straight or set to me. If you call here you'll probably need a runner runner
to win and may have to call multiple bets to the end to get there.
Hand #2: Re-raise.
Hand #3: I guess it'd depend on what happened in hand #2. It looks like the same yahoos are going to battle
in this hand as in #2 and it'd be nice to know what they had last hand. But, I know you can't divulge that
information yet. I wouldn't mind paying 3 bets to see the flop with this hand, but you might have to pay a
4th. Is folding terribly weak? I think that's my answer. Fold.
Hand #4: Call
Hand #5: Fold or Raise. With this many opponents you are probably facing an ace. I'd probably fold.
Hand #6: Hmm, there's a lot of money in the pot. You aren't closing the action, but I think I'd call and hope
EMP just calls.
88
bisonbison
Hand 1 - A
Hand 2 - T
Hand 3 - A
Hand 4 - K
Hand 5 - 8
Hand 6 - Q
J UTG+2. - Fold.
T button. - 3-bet
K in the CO. - Capitola
10 UTG. - fold
8 Button. - Fold.
Q CO – call
fluff
1) EMP told you twice he has AA-JJ and BB just said he doesn't care what EMP has. Assuming average
players (no read), you are probably drawing thin to what could be an expensive show down. Fold.
2) Three betting will probably make this hand easier to play: if overcards fall on the flop, and someone
insisits on betting into you, you can probably let it go. Otherwise you can keep going.
3) I would call here.
4) One guy raised, the other guy check-3bet. I'd give at least one of them credit for having a flush and would
let go here.
5) Since Ax is very popular at these limits, I would fold here.
6) There is a good chance you're beat here, but the pot is huge, so suck it up and call.
kiemo
Hand 1: If I think I can get in for one SB then I limp, otherwise I muck. Once you are reraised I muck. On
the flop I think EMP has you beat with higher pair and BB hit 2 pair.
Hand 2: Raise. You probably have the best hand
Hand 3: Cap.
Hand 4: Fold. Agaisnt only one opponent I would call this down.
Hand 5: Call if you think no re-raise will come into play. You would like to see the next card for cheap.
Hand 6: Call. If I think EMP will 3-bet, then I raise, but he hasnt 3-bet yet so I have to think he will call
again.
Festus22 (Results So Far)
1. 13 fold / 0 call
2. 12 reraise / 1 call
3. 11 reraise / 1 call / 1 fold
4. 9 fold / 4 call
5. 11 fold / 2 call
6. 10 call / 3 fold
Oh dear...do I HAVE to post what I did?
bisonbison
89
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, and my game would be a lot better if I posted more
hands where I embarrassed myself.
Here's my mea culpa last night, up a lot on 4 tables, I limp in with A8s. 4 to the flop, 2 of my suit. bet to my
immediate right, I raise, 2 to the turn which makes my flush. check-bet-call. river pairs the board and we
cap the river cause for some reason I don't believe that he actually has a boat.
Capping the river cost me 2BB I didn't have to spend. Roughly 100 hands worth of work. BAD JOB
BISONBISON.
Festus22 (Hand Results/What I Did)
Hand 1: I folded. I feel a lot better about this one after seeing this was unanimous. The turn was an ace. BB
bet, EMP called. River was a blank. Bet/call. BB showed down A-Jo versus EMP's Q-Q so I would have
chopped.
Hand 2: I think I have a mental block when it comes to tens. I just called as did the blinds. Flop came down
all spades with a king. SB bet, CO raised, I folded. In this case, should I be looking at trying to keep some
players in to pay off a set or reraise to isolate? 10-10 seems right on the border but given the response so
far, it looks like reraise prevails by far.
Hand 3: Ugh. I regretfully admit I folded. The previous hand did not go to showdown so I don't know what
the CO was raising with. I think I f'ed up, let's move on shall we?
Hand 4: Wow, this was a tough one. It was the check-raise that really convinced me to fold. If it went like
bet, I raise, he 3-bets, I may have called. So I did indeed fold. River paired the board. The button had 9's
that made a set on the turn and boated on the river. BB showed down the ever popular 8 3 for the
turned flush.
Hand 5: I was feeling a bit frisky here and raised. Based on the responses, it looks like I'm all alone on this
one. I would say this wasn't my "default" play but it's something I may do from time to time. Everyone
folded around to LMP who called. Turn was a 4 giving me a gutshot as well. LMP checked, I bet, he folded.
Bad play, good result?
Hand 6: Yet another agonizing decision. I give credit to Ed Miller pounding the big pot thing into my head.
I indeed called although I got into the timer while deciding. EMP just called. EMP showed down 10-9o
(that was played rather amusingly, don't you think?) and LMP A 2 for the baby 2 pair and busted flush
draw. He obviously was making a play for the pot. This had to be one of those "good x% of the time?" calls
that the "x" actually hit.
Thanks all for replying! And please offer any feedback on my play on any of these.
Nate tha' Great (Hand #5)
Against a lot of opponents, this should be a fold, but calling is much worse than raising.
Ed Miller
Hand 1: You are getting essentially 12-to-1. Of course you should call. The more interesting question is
whether you should have raised the flop in the first place. I think you should not.
Hand 2: 3-bet.
Hand 3: *shrug* Fold I guess. It depends on the raisers, but remember you are playing against a significant
rake.
Hand 4: Eh, that check/3-bet move is pretty strong. I'd probably fold... Pot is reasonably large, but you have
to dodge two possible flushes. A river diamond beats you even if you are best now.
90
Hand 5: Generally, I'd fold. The pot is small, and so many overcards can beat you even if you do have the
best hand. If you raise preflop or the top card is not an ace, my answer might change.
Hand 6: Dude, sucks to be you. Pot is huge, but it is two bets to you. I think you should fold. You are
getting only 8-to-1. Both of your opponents essentially have to be bluffing for you to win.
GuyOnTilt
Hand 1: You are getting essentially 12-to-1. Of course you should call.
This is absolutely horrid for you to post this, Ed. What in the world do your immediate pot odds have
anything to do with a decision to call here? Think about it.
GoT
Ed Miller
This is absolutely horrid for you to post this, Ed. What in the world do your immediate pot odds have
anything to do with a decision to call here? Think about it.
Your immediate (italics not mine) pot odds affect every decision you make, directly or indirectly. I
understand exactly what you are saying, but if you think that you should fold, I disagree.
In fact, I'm kind of shocked that people are seriously considering folding. I guess shocked isn't the right
word... I can always count on people to choose the weak-tight side. But if you were going to consider
folding, you should have thought of that before you blasted into this flop, guns ablazin'.
Ed Miller
In case it isn't clear, I really don't like the flop raise. To me, that decision is more important than the
decision in question. Even though your prospects are dubious, I couldn't imagine folding in such a large pot.
The Dude
You are getting essentially 12-to-1. Of course you should call.
I really don't see the significance of this number at all. I think you talking about odds that your hand is
currently good? If so, you need to consider your odds to call down to the river (which could be as bad as
4:1 or as good as 5:1), not your immediate odds.
Immediate odds could mean something if you are talking about a draw, but if you think you need to
improve, you should fold. Surely you can't think you have 5 clean outs. EMP's play sure looks like an
overpair (which occaisionally will be AA) or a set, and BB's play looks an awful lot like JTs or KQs. All of
these hands reduce your number of outs. You need 4 clean outs to call based on pot odds, and I don't think
it would be horrible to think against reasonable opponents you aren't getting that.
Now, the fact that this hand is in micro-stakes would make it VERY difficult to lay this hand down, but
against reasonable opponents folding to this 4-bet I think is correct.
But if you were going to consider folding, you should have thought of that before you blasted into this flop,
guns ablazin'.
I agree with this statement. AK or AQs will NOT fold here, so what does raising accomplish? If you're
going to fold to this 4-bet then I like just calling.
GuyOnTilt
Your immediate (italics not mine) pot odds affect every decision you make, directly or indirectly. I
understand exactly what you are saying, but if you think that you should fold, I disagree.
I wasn't saying anything about folding or not folding. I was saying that the fact that you're getting an
immediate 24:2 or whatever should have very little to do with your decision in this hand. The pot odds that
you should be looking at are not your immediate pot odds, because you do not have a drawing hand. They
91
should be the odds the pot is offering you to CALL DOWN. In this case with TWO opponents who are
going at each other, your odds are very unclear and not very calculatable, but saying, "I call because I'm
getting 12:1" is completely incorrect thinking.
If you had a drawing hand, something like QJ, then your immediate pot odds would be very relevant. But in
this hand, if you're behind then you have very little if any chance of improvement, so your immediate pot
odds are virtually irrelevant.
GoT
Festus22
Alright, I'll bite. Why was the flop raise bad? I thought it quite possible that I had the best hand when it was
one bet to me so I don't think raising can be awful from that perspective. My raise also afforded the
opportunity to better define EMP's hand in that IF he 3-bet, I could probably put him on a high pocket pair
or a set and reassess my prospects at this point. 3-bets at micro limits usually have more meaning than a
single raise.
I just don't like the line of play that's likely going to happen if I call the flop. It would usually go BB bets, I
call, EMP raises, BB calls, I call(?). OK, does he have A-K, A-Q, K-Q or does he have me beat? Turn is a
blank. Check/call it down? Now I'm burning 2 BB's to find out what 1 more SB invested by my flop raise
told me.
If this line of thinking is way off, please tell me.
Ed Miller
In this case with TWO opponents who are going at each other, your odds are very unclear and not very
calculatable
Agreed. Which is why I never bothered to mention it (reverse implied odds). I didn't think I needed to
because the pot was so big. For instance, what if the pot had been a billion dollars. If I said, "Dude, you
can't fold, the pot's a freakin billion dollars," would I be guilty of fuzzy thinking? Hopefully even you would
concede that I wouldn't.
"I call because I'm getting 12:1" is completely incorrect thinking.
Dude, settle down. This is what I'm saying, "The pot is too big to fold." All I did was say exactly HOW BIG
the pot is. If I didn't, then everyone who read this thread would have to go and count the pot down as I did
before I posted my response.
So what's so terribly, horribly wrong about what I said again? From my perspective it looks like you are just
trying to bust my balls.
Ed Miller
I really don't see the significance of this number at all.
12-to-1 is a measure of the size of the pot. The size of the pot is THE determining factor for whether you
call or fold here. If that number were 6-to-1, you'd fold. If it were 100-to-1, I'd ridicule anyone who didn't
want to call.
I don't know what to say if you STILL don't think that number is significant...
Ed Miller
I don't have much time to follow this up. The line of thinking is similar (but with a few, obvious, important
differences) to that in the AA hand on a monotone board from like Quiz #2.
92
This is an interesting hand. Might want to post it on Mid-Stakes so you can get more of the heavy hitters in
on it. If you do, I'd suggest you just post it clean with no references to this thread.
I think you misplayed the flop just about as badly as possible. I suppose you could have called the 4-bet and
then mucked your cards before the dealer burned and turned... but then again, I don't think the software lets
you do that (yet another problem with playing online). Don't worry about it, though... this is a tricky hand
for sure.
EDIT: Also read this thread.
Chris Daddy Cool Section
CDC is one of the few high limit players on 2+2 who is still nice enough to make it down to the micros from
time to time and give out advice to all of the new players here. It’s something that I wish a lot more good
players would do, but since they don’t, you have to make sure to pay attention whenever he’s around. His
advice is really good, and is always well though out (which is more important, and probably more helpful
since it’s better to have a wrong answer explained than a right answer just given).
This section includes a great discussion about reverse implied odds (featuring great posts by sthief09), an
AA hand he played against bisonbison, an interesting discussion about when to checkraise with top pair,
and a debate about suited connectors preflop. All of these threads were helpful to me, and opened my eyes
to some concepts I hadn’t considered before.
Again, if there are any others from him, or any poster that you think deserve to be in the collection, just
send me a PM with the link, or a basic idea of what it was about, and I’ll try to search it out. I’d really
prefer a link though, because I’m lazy.
93
Reverse Implied Odds
Chris Daddy Cool
Party 15/30 9 handed
I openraise with AJo. A tight 17/5 player 3-bets right up next to me, folded back to me.
Flop: AKQ rainbow
so?
BottlesOf
Ok, I'll start.
Check/call the flop.
Someone else, grab the turn scenarios.
sfer
Type, "100/200 is my normal game" and commence spray.
sthief09
94
OK I'll go with check-call. if you make a straight, bet. he'll call you. also, he might check the turn with JJ99. check-fold the turn though. there are no reverse implied odds here because you aren't playing your pair
sfer
Really? You've got a gutshot but are exposed to big redraws while having the best hand a very small percent
of the time. The pot is 8.5 SBs. I think you can release to a flop bet.
BottlesOf
Huh? Even if you say we only have 4.0 outs, which cannot be the case, you don't think you can make that up
on the big streets?
Edit: I considered check/folding and don't fell that would be horrible, but I think we have enough here. He
doesn't have AQ.
sfer
You can make 1 BB for sure with Josh's line. Beyond that, maybe.
EDIT: The real thing here is 5% preflop raise. The range of hands you're facing is pretty damn narrow.
EDIT EDIT: You might be ahead slightly more often than I wild-ass-guessed, but I doubt it since I doubt a
5% PFR will 3-bet TT. So you're behind AA/KK/QQ/AK and ahead of JJ. Maybe he 3-bets AQ but again I
doubt it. Someone do the math on this. Intuitively it seems like you are are ahead basically never.
Harv72b
If a ten comes on the turn, I think I'd go for a check/raise.
sthief09
the problem with a check-raise is that he could lay down and might not bet. if you bet, he'll call and maybe
even raise with a set
Harv72b
Upon further reflection, I now believe that a disconnect might be the best possible play.
Lmn55d
You can make 1 BB for sure with Josh's line. Beyond that, maybe.
well you need to makeup 1.5 sb, which would be pretty easy. The thing is if he has a set or even 2 pair, your
equity decreases. I think its pretty damn close if you include all this. Yea he could have 99-JJ...but I'd say a
good portion of players who have that wouldn't bet that flop, plus hero has one jack.
BottlesOf
AA: 1 combo--4 outs
KK: 3 combos--4 outs
QQ: 3 combos--4 outs
JJ: 3 combos--winning
AK: 6 combos--4 outs
81% 4 outs, but a re-draw; 3.75 outs? 19% we have the best hand. Soooo, that's about a 10 outer.....
.19*10= 1.9
.81*3.75= 3.0375
sums to almost 5
I think you can call. However, I can be way off on my re-draw adjustment, and the thing about counting a
19% best as 10 outs could be total bullshit. In fact, could someone down with Bayes tell me what they think
of all this?
95
duk
Given his 3-bet, you're hoping he has what, JJ or TT? Anything else looks pretty bad for you, and even
those two aren't very good, as they put a damper on your drawing possibilities. I think check-folding is in
order here. Are there any probable hands I'm missing that would be good for you?
Lmn55d
well if you're downgrading the 4 outs to 3.75 because of his redraws, that assumes that if CDaddy hits he
will win the pot 94% of the time...this seems high no? Lets say opponent has KK and CDaddy hits on turn,
then opponent has 9 outs to win and 3 to tie. Thats probably like a 25% chance? So I'd say he has like 3
outs for gutshot. Also, if opponent has JJ he has 4 outs to split and one out to win. If he has TT he has 3
outs to win.
BottlesOf
Yep, i just cut a little bit b/c...I don't know why. 3.75 is too high.
I'm starting to lean towards fold.
Also, b/c I don't know that you reap the value of having a best hand against JJ. If the turn blanks, and he
bets it again (Which will happen sometimes) you're folding, and he got you out with the best hand.
I'm joing the muckers.
sfer
If the turn is a T and the villain is drawing live, he will hit his redraws something between 10% and 25% of
the time on the river.
BottlesOf
It's more like 3.5 (not 3.75) plus some b/c of chance you're best and won't be pushed off with JJ.
Pending a debate about reverse implied odds with sthief, I'm back into the call column.
joker122
is anyone else folding to his preflop 3bet?
Evan
Are you serious? I think that's a pretty awful mistake for both value and image.
Chris Daddy Cool
i fold KQo from time to time but I would never fold an Ace here.
joker122
actually, yeah, folding is retarded, because even if you against anything but AA your at worst a 3:1 dog
getting 6.5:1 on the call.
sthief09
you have 4 outs to a straight. [(7)(1/4.6)+(6)(1/10.5)]/13 times you lose to a boat redraw, so you have about
3.5 straight outs. you'll check-fold when he fills up, so THERE ARE NO REVERSE IMPLIED ODDS.
when you hit, you'll win 2 BB. there are 4 SB of implied odds. When he has JJ it'll almost always go checkcheck on the turn. that wins you about 90% of ~4 BB pot (10% he sucks out)
getting 7-1 + 4 SB of implied odds + the chance you have the best hand and he checks behind on the turn =
call
sfer
you'll check-fold when he fills up, so THERE ARE NO REVERSE IMPLIED ODDS.
96
You can only check/fold to a rivered A/K. TT on the turn river you have to call, as well as a Q since AK is
his most likely hand.
EDIT: Oh yeah, good post; you convinced me. G'a'head and call.
Chris Daddy Cool
I check/folded the flop.
After talking to Josh, I realize I should have called the flop.
Assuming I hit that T on the turn, I can checkraise the turn and lead the river because a set or two pair is
almost never going to get folded on the river by most players heads up. That's 6 small bets, which can make
up for the flop call.
During the hand, I discounted my outs far too greatly because 1. I suck at the precise math needed for close
decisions. 2. I discredited JJ more often than I should have.
I think 2 was the major reason. I pegged him as a rock, but even rocks will 3-bet JJ. So I assumed I was up
against AA, KK, QQ, or AK and was drawing to a gutshot against a FH redraw which I discounted my outs
way too heavily for.
Incidently, not saying this makes my decision right or wrong or anything, but I later saw my opponent from
this hand coldcall with JJ and not raise another hand for 4 orbits before he left.
mr pink
this might sound like a dumb question but could someone explain the math behind this
[(7)(1/4.6)+(6)(1/10.5)]/13
for the mathematically challenged.
sthief09
7 combinations have 10 outs, which will be 10/46 = 1/4.6 to spike on the river
6 combinations have 4 outs, which will be 4/46 = 1/10.5 to spike on the river
nothumb
Given his 3-bet, you're hoping he has what, JJ or TT? Anything else looks pretty bad for you, and even
those two aren't very good, as they put a damper on your drawing possibilities. I think check-folding is in
order here. Are there any probable hands I'm missing that would be good for you?
Ok, what you're missing is, yes, JJ and TT eliminate some of your 'outs', but you are ahead of those hands
given this flop. So to say that you aren't getting good odds on your draw against JJ or TT is wrong, because
you are heads up and way ahead.
Not to be nitty, I just don't want you to miss that. I think you should call the flop.
NT
97
AA hand against bisonbison
Chris Daddy Cool
bisonbison is the small blind in this hand.
Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is BB with A , A . CO posts a blind of $3.
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, CO (poster) checks, Button
calls, SB (bisonbison) completes, Hero raises, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, CO calls, Button calls, SB
(bisonbison) calls.
Flop: (12 SB) 7 , 3 , 5 (6 players)
bisonbison checks, Hero bets, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, CO calls, Button calls, bisonbison raises, Hero
calls, MP1 calls, CO calls, Button folds.
Turn: (10.50 BB) 2 (4 players)
bisonbison bets, Hero folds...
sublime
Knowing him
And knowing he knows you, and how you play (aggressive with overcards) it looks like he has a set here.
I would say nice fold
98
nepenthe
This is a prudent fold at the turn, because neither your Ace or straight outs are looking very good and this
could potentially be a very expensive hand with which to see the river and/or showdown. Against a set
you're obviously drawing very thin. Against 46s you're dead. Against any singleton 6 or 4 remaining in any
opponent's hands plus the compelling chance of a set, you really don't like your chances.
Gatts
Yeah, I gotta fold this. When a 2+2er c/r on the flop, I immediately think set, but he definitely could be
completing with 46s. You're drawing slim-to-dead against just about any hand Bison's check-raising with,
and your outs are probably dirty with two others in the pot.
bisonbison
3/6 is a 1/3 blind structure. I don't have 46.
Sarge85
Bleah - when did weak tight come back in fashion?
Isn't it feasible that Bison would play 88 or 99 in a similar fashion - especially if he knows you'd probably
bet AK into that pooey board on the flop? hell maybe even Bison has A7s.
I just don't like the fold.
Sarge
sublime
Isn't it feasible that Bison would play 88 or 99 in a similar fashion - especially if he knows you'd probably
bet AK into that pooey board on the flop? hell maybe even Bison has A7s.
I think he would bet those on the flop. At least when he does that he gives chris the *chance* to thin the
field.
The way he played it, he didnt really want folds.
Chris Daddy Cool
theres no way bison would play 88 or 99 like this.
A7, no way either.
thirddan
What about A4s? He would complete with this for the SB and with so many players in he can probably c/r
his double gutshot + bd flush draw for value...What say you?
Chris Daddy Cool
if he does have A4s for the double gutshot, he hit it with that 2 didn't he?
thirddan
yes he did, i wasn't commenting on your fold, i was giving a possible alternate hand that bison could have
that he might play the same, since everyone thinks he can only have a set or 64...
sublime
I like this fold.
I just ran through your options and you could have a VERY thin call (-EV IMO) Raising to clear up your
straight/set outs will cost you 3 BB's in a BEST case scenario (in which you actually DO clean up your
outs).
99
Sweet fold bro
bisonbison
The best thing about a double gutshot is that many people may miss it and PM you on party berating you for
a "terrible" flop c/r.
Hypothetically.
sublime
If you did hold A4s, why not lead the flop, and hope that CDC has an overpair(or overcards) and raises to
thin the field?
If he gets called all over and it comes back to you, you still have your *value* but now have added the
chance that another ace can fold. Hypothetically.
bisonbison
You need to read sthief's "a 10/20 hand my friend played" post. I'm not going to argue either side of this for
a while.
sfer
I agree with Sublime. If I had A4 and I had a goatee and my name was Peter and everyone worshipped my
converter I would bet and try to use 1 BB to buy 3 more outs.
Chris Daddy Cool
Hypothetically speaking, checkraising would be the best play for A4s in this spot when he knows such an
aggressive player will bet for sure into a field of a million. the equity he would gain by the double bets will
far exceed the value he gets from "cleaning up his A outs"
sthief09
the only hand you beat is specifically 86s, and when he bets the turn it's obvious he doesn't have that. if he's
check-raising that many people on the flop, he has a monster or a good draw. 86s is the only good draw. It's
looking like a set here.
I'm putting bison on specifically A
4
here
StellarWind
I agree with most of what has been said. It looks like bisonbison has a set or wheel and you should fold.
With a smaller field I'd have to worry about a doublecross, but I don't think it's practical for a hand like 88
to play this way against six people, even if it might fool CDC into a big mistake.
If I had the set against CDC I would have experienced an overwhelming urge to checkraise him again on the
turn. I think the odds heavily favor this play. The field is more likely to call CDC than bisonbison after what
happened on the flop. Plus you trap them for two bets. Then they call the river because the pot is monstrous.
Even if CDC checks someone behind him is likely to take the hook.
sthief09
I like the turn c/r line a lot.
you're really effin' good.
Luke
What about bison holding 64s, 75s, or even 53s? I think he'd have the odds to call preflop given the number
of limpers, both before and after the raise.
And if he flops 2 pair, he may very well decide to CR trap the entire field and lead on the turn.
100
I suppose 64 can be ruled out once he leads the turn, though.
However, if bison holds two pair, CDC certainly has enough outs to continue on the turn.
Just thought I'd point out some of those hands because I didn't see anyone else mention them.
PokeHer
I agree with Luke. It is possible that Bison has 2 pair with 75s being pretty much the only hand he might
stay in with that would make him 2 pair.
bisonbison
guys, when you are the small blind and CDC is the big blind in a 1/3 structure, your implied odds for crappy
suited 1-gaps are not great, because he will raise roughly 1/6 of the time. I DO NOT HAVE SUITED
CRAP.
Chris Daddy Cool
a hand like 2 pair, even top 2 pair, is vulnerable in this spot. he would lead into me hoping i would thin out
the field.
turnipmonster
Yeah, I gotta fold this. When a 2+2er c/r on the flop, I immediately think set
!?!?!?!?!?!?
turnipmonster
i wanted to see what happened on the turn, in case he has some sort of bizarre draw or whatever that i
didn't see. but when he bets the turn, i know he has a made hand
what hand is he going to raise the flop with and then check the turn? and, given how you played your hand
here, is he correct to ever c/r and then check the turn? If I knew you would fold overpairs some % of the
time, I would rarely if ever take this line.
sublime
You need to read sthief's "a 10/20 hand my friend played" post. I'm not going to argue either side of this
for a while.
Heros draw in the "friends" post is a lot stronger that yours and he doesnt have any likely outs to protect.
You on the other hand, do.
Of course this doesnt mean I am right, just food for thought.
Festus22
Why Bison is sitting at a table with you on his left is beyond me.
Seriously, there's SO many good tables available I don't understand why one would sit with one of the best,
most aggressive SS players in the worst possible relative position.
Seriously -EV situation.
I know if I see a few 2+2ers at my table, I find another table.
bisonbison
ahahahahahahahaha. It seems so simple, doesn't it?
Rico Suave
I think CDC is stalking bison......there is no escape.
Festus22
101
If Bison is playing through Party, he just needs to change his screen name.
Best thing I ever did.
bisonbison
But that would take away half the fun.
Nate tha' Great
WTF this fold is bad.
It sounds like you have Bison's range of hands down pat which include all suited aces and all pocket pairs
but not low suited one gappers.
If that is the case, you can narrow his holdings down to exactly A4s, 77, 55, 33.
Against A4s, of which there are only *2* combos since you have two aces, you have 3 outs to a split = 1.5
outs.
Against 9 combos of a set you have 6 outs.
Weighted average number of outs = 5.18.
You can't fold that getting 11.5:1. That's a fairly substantial mistake.
Nate tha' Great
guys, when you are the small blind and CDC is the big blind in a 1/3 structure, your implied odds for
crappy suited 1-gaps are not great, because he will raise roughly 1/6 of the time. I DO NOT HAVE
SUITED CRAP.
A4s is not substantially better than 86s or 75s or 64s once the field gets this large. It is more playable
against a smaller field (say 2-3 limpers) since it is more likely that you hold the only A. However once there
are more limpers the value of making more straights tends to outweigh the high card power of the ace.
Chris Daddy Cool
If that is the case, you can narrow his holdings down to exactly A4s, 77, 55, 33.
these are exactly the hands that bison must have here given my read.
Against A4s, of which there are only *2* combos since you have two aces, you have 3 outs to a split = 1.5
outs....
Weighted average number of outs = 5.18.
I think you ignoring what the other players might have and are overestimating my outs here. If I hit my A on
the river to hit top set, anyone with a 4 will make a straight. If I hit my 4 on the river for the wheel, anyone
with a 6 will make a higher straight. If this were a headsup pot with bison with the pot size, I think a call
would be in order, but with the players to act behind me...
Nate tha' Great
Yeah, I wasn't paying attention to the players behind you.
I would never make this fold, but I don't have any opponents whose hand range I know that specifically.
elindauer
102
You fold?! what? That's just terrible. You have to raise the turn. It's a big pot. bisonbison may well have a
hand like 76. You have outs against a random two pair, and you need to make sure your hand stands up if it
is ahead.
Calling would be the next best choice. Folding is right out.
spamuell
bisonbison may well have a hand like 76.
Replace bisonbison with random party player and you're right.
Then replace that random party player with bisonbison and you are just so wrong.
Read the thread.
Edited to add: If it turns out bison had 76, I really have no idea how to read anyone so I desperately hope it
doesn't.
elindauer
ok, after reading the other posts, I see that in the one chip blind I may have put bison on a wider range of
hands than he would actually play with this particular big blind.
spamuell
ok, after reading the other posts, I see that in the one chip blind I may have put bison on a wider range of
hands than he would actually play with this particular big blind.
Don't try to blame this all on a pre-flop misunderstanding due to blind structure. Do you think bison (or any
solid 2+2er) is check-raising this flop with 76 as opposed to betting out with CDC on their immediate left?
nepenthe
Next time I see a 2+2er I am SO playing my 88 in exactly this manner it's not funny.
spamuell
That's the thing though, because of all those other players we can be fairly sure bison isn't just getting tricky.
I don't think it would be so great to play 88 in this manner unless you actually know the player to your left
has an overpair, in which case it's imperative that you do so.
thirddan
no matter what people say in this thread, i highly doubt that many 2+2ers will fold AA on the turn...CDC
and Bison have played a lot together, that is why he can so specifically narrow down Bison's holdings and
fold, but most players don't have a good enough read on any single opponent to fold here...
Michael Davis
The way I see it, CDC is operating on a level here that most very good players play it, and perhaps not
many get beyond. I am not saying that he doesn't sometimes play on a higher level, but it is not even an
insult to say so.
If bison can make this play here with other hands because he knows CDC might fold AA then he is an
operating on an even higher level and we are all screwed.
This is why shorthanded limit games with really good players become call-down fests.
Monty Cantsin
It's a well known fact that Bison stops at level 2.
bisonbison
103
It's a well known fact that Bison stops at level 2.
Just on Battletoads.
Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is SB with A , 4 . CO posts a blind of $3.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 1 fold, MP1 calls, 2 folds, CO (poster) checks, Button calls, Hero completes, BB
raises, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, CO calls, Button calls, Hero calls.
Flop: (12 SB) 7 , 3 , 5 (6 players)
Hero checks, BB bets, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, CO calls, Button calls, Hero raises, BB calls, MP1 calls,
CO calls, Button folds.
Turn: (10.50 BB) 2 (4 players)
Hero bets, BB folds, MP1 calls, CO calls.
River: (13.50 BB) 6 (3 players)
Hero bets, MP1 folds, CO calls.
Final Pot: 15.50 BB
bakku
You forgot to c/r the turn.
Chris Daddy Cool
I concur.
bisonbison
Bakku, no comments from the class of 2012.
Schneids
I saw this post very late, only seeing it at all as a result of it being added into the favorite threads list...
Anyway, I've read all the comments and have a few things to say:
1) My initial reaction, like Nate's, was this fold is bad.
However, although I know CDC is very aggressive, I'm wondering just how aggressive is he? On the flop,
after getting check raised, is he capable of three-betting with only overcards? If so, I think that would be a
great reason to check raise the flop with a LOT wider range of hands than you guys wish to give Bisonbison
credit for.
In particular, even though this hand I played in took place August 6th, I still remember its dynamics. I'm
sharing it because I think it relates to the way this hand between Bison and Chris could be played out.
CO is a total clown in this game. I know this guy also makes Diablo's list as one of his favorite clowns in
10/20. I have played over 2000 hands against CO and he probably knows me to be a little over aggressive
too as I tend to play back at him more so than typical simply because he gives excessive action with little.
Button is very, very passive, and somewhat tight. Like CO, I have played a ton of hands with button. Button
has always given my play tons of respect. He has a PFR of 4% and about the only hands he'll reraise with
PF are AA-QQ.
Party Poker 10/20 Hold'em (6 max, 6 handed) converter
Preflop: Schneids is BB with 8
,8
.
104
UTG folds, MP folds, CO (LAG Overplaying Regular) raises, Button (Tight Passive Respects Me) calls, SB
calls, Schneids calls.
Flop: (8 SB) 6 , 3 , 5 (4 players)
SB checks, Schneids checks, LAG Overplaying Regular bets, Tight Passive Respects Me calls, SB calls,
Schneids raises, LAG Overplaying Regular calls, Tight Passive Respects Me calls, SB calls.
Turn: (8 BB) 2 (4 players)
SB checks, Schneids bets, LAG Overplaying Regular calls, Tight Passive Respects Me folds, SB calls.
River: (11 BB) 3 (3 players)
SB checks, Schneids bets, LAG Overplaying Regular folds, SB calls.
Final Pot: 13 BB
Results in white below:
SB has 8h 6c (two pair, sixes and threes).
Schneids has 8c 8d (two pair, eights and threes).
Outcome: Schneids wins 13 BB.
After the hand, button says "damn papa you got me to fold TT, good c/r."
My primary reason for check raising the flop was because I honestly expected CO to 3-bet with very little as
that was his typical tendency. I thought the rest of the field was capable of laying down for another 2 cold
even after calling one bet, and doing it this way would likely get more dead money into the pot. Yes, my
goal failed, but the added bonuses of check raising a hand like this are as follows:
1) You might get a better hand to fold since "people only checkraise the field with monsters."
2) It makes the turn and river significantly easier to play. You get raised on the turn, you are probably beat.
You get raised when a straight making card comes, you are probably beat. People do not come to life
against others who've shown random aggression unless they actually have 'it.'
Similarly, in the CDC vs. Bison hand I think it was imperative for CDC to 3-bet the flop, and yes I do
acknowledge a lot of the time CDC is currently beat when Bison checkraises the flop. 3-betting the flop is
necessary to prevent a catastrophe from occuring: namely, folding the best hand in a gigantic pot. When you
3-bet, Bison is never, ever, showing more aggression against you unless you're definitely beat. I think this is
one of those rare times you should raise for information.
Chris, I am wondering what your plan was if the turn had come a card such as a T or J? Were you still
planning on folding to any turn card or was it the 2 in particular that did it (it making straight draws that
scared you into concluding Bison either c/r a straight draw for value and now hit, or else already has a set or
something...)?
If you made it this far thanks for reading, I feel like I was jumping all over the place in making a response -hopefully it's coherent.
Chris Daddy Cool
hey schneids
Similarly, in the CDC vs. Bison hand I think it was imperative for CDC to 3-bet the flop, and yes I do
acknowledge a lot of the time CDC is currently beat when Bison checkraises the flop. 3-betting the flop is
necessary to prevent a catastrophe from occuring: namely, folding the best hand in a gigantic pot. When
you 3-bet, Bison is never, ever, showing more aggression against you unless you're definitely beat. I think
this is one of those rare times you should raise for information.
Chris, I am wondering what your plan was if the turn had come a card such as a T or J? Were you still
planning on folding to any turn card or was it the 2 in particular that did it (it making straight draws that
105
scared you into concluding Bison either c/r a straight draw for value and now hit, or else already has a set
or something...)?
Any other player besides bison, i would have done one of two things. a) 3-bet the flop, or b) wait till the
turn to raise. if this board were draw heavy, and bison c/r this flop i do the same
but the thing is, i know bison's range of completing hands at 3/6 quite well and given the texture of the
board, he has either one of two things, a set, or (though i didn't know it at the time) a double gutshot A4s.
I also know he's not semi bluffing into the monster field on the turn without a made hand. so he either had a
set to begin with, or the 2 completed a wheel for him. thus i fold.
i was almost 99% sure of my read that I was beat. however, if a blank fell and bison checks, I'm betting this
turn in a heartbeat, but if checkraised again, I'd fold.
this hand was very player dependent. some other very aggressive players like say for example natethagreat
or sthief may still bet the turn with a draw and I'd be more inclined to playback there.
the hand example you gave, schneids, is also player dependent, but you know as well as anybody that the
10/20 6max tables are far more aggressive and crazy and is a different monster than the party 3/6 game,
where you're inclined to see more showdowns despite of any trickyness.
When to bet out or checkraise the flop with top pair
Chris Daddy Cool
So my micro-dudes, here's a lil' sumthin' sumthin' for y'alls.
You're the first to act in a multiway pot. You flop top pair. What conditions apply where you should lead
the flop or checkraise it?
Whoever sufficiently answers this question rocks.
bisonbison
How multiway? How aggressive is the table? Will the button bet if checked to? What's the board texture?
What's my kicker? Do I have any draws, backdoor or otherwise?
Chris Daddy Cool
Dude.. I told YOU to make the conditions.
bisonbison
I am most likely to checkraise the flop when a player to my left raises preflop, I call and flop a strong draw.
jrobb83
If I raised preflop I'll always bet out. If a player immediately to my left raised preflop, I'll bet out. If a player
far to my left raised preflop I'll go for the check-raise. If there was no raise preflop, I'll always bet out unless
a very aggressive player is to my immediate or far left.
Chris Daddy Cool
Ok ok. I just realized this general question is harder to answer if I don't at least give you some starting point.
You hold A
T
Flop: T
5
6
in the BB. UTG is the pf raiser. 7 players total in this hand. 14.5 SB in the pot.
106
Also.... same hand, but no pre flop raiser.
bisonbison
I'd bet and hope to get raised.
jrobb83
I'd bet and hope to get raised.
Same here.
Chris Daddy Cool
You rock.
kenewbie
Bet out if you have a preflop raiser close to you. That should be standard play. If the preflop raiser is in late
position then it is close between betting out and
checkraising. People tend to check to the preflop raiser, but on the more "aware" tables, people are also
afraid to get stuck between the two of you when you bet out.
I think the people who dont really consider that they will be stuck are the same people that will call your
raise cold.
If everyone just limped then you have a bit more of a pickle. The best move is usually to checkraise, the
large field acts somewhat paralyzing to your early position opponents aswell, more often than not the bet
will come from a late player.
If you attempt to check/raise and the bet comes from an early player then just call and bet into him on the
turn if the card doesnt alter things. This gives him a chance to raise and it will also scare out those between
you (who dont want to get trapped) and possibly others who worry about what you just woke up with.
Chris Daddy Cool
how about an unraised pot?
jrobb83
Also.... same hand, but no pre flop raiser
Still bet out unless there are aggressive players in late position, in which case I go for the check-raise.
Chris Daddy Cool
You hold 8 8 in the BB in an unraised pot with 7 other players.
Flop: 7
4
2
bisonbison
This is much closer. Is the SB in?
sin808
I would go for a checkraise, hopefully from a late position bettor. I'd want as much of the field as possible
to have to face two bets.
probably wrong, but that would be my first guess (at this point in my game).
Jaran
It's close, but I think betting out is best. I'm hoping that someone with Ax
sfer
will raise so I can make it 3.
107
I am most likely to checkraise the flop when a player to my left raises preflop, I call and flop a strong
draw.
Add a flopped set and two pair to this. Also when a player to your left is a flop autobettor. You know who
they are, and some of them are on these boards.
bisonbison
Well, obviously if I flop a great hand and he's on my left then I'll c/r.
And as a flop autobettor, I don't know why this doesn't happen to me more often.
sfer
I have an SOP against a standard BB but I'm curious what others think.
You raise UTG with AKo. UTG+1 folds, TAG MP 3-bets. BB comes along so the flop is 3 ways.
Flop: A 2 7 rainbow. Check intending to raise or bet?
sfer
And as a flop autobettor, I don't know why this doesn't happen to me more often.
Because you try to sit to bakku's left.
Speaking of LAG-fests, looks like I'll be in the Bay Area either the 2nd or 3rd week of August, chumps.
Who's around for some B&M straddling?
Chris Daddy Cool
I think I bet with the intention of 3betting, especially if BB is easily trapable for multiple bets.
sfer
How about calling intending to checkraise the turn?
Chris Daddy Cool
I like this line.
Bet out the flop. Get raised. Call. Then checkraise the turn.
Jaran
OK, I've thought about this for a while, and still can't decide, so I'm going to go with my first instinct. I bet
out and hope that MP raises, forcing BB to call 2 cold.
sfer
Does the BB concern you much on that board?
Jaran
That is part of the reason I'm torn about what to do. If the BB is a decent player, I'm wondering what he
calls 2 here with. If he is a typical party player, then he doesn't worry me at all. In the latter case, I think I
want to c/r and try to get him to call multible bets one at a time. If he's decent and called with a medium pp,
then I want to force him to call 2. The board is not scary at all for TPTK, so the small chance that MP will
check it through is not an issue unless it gives BB a free card to hit his set. Without a read on BB I'm betting
out.
sin808
After spending some time thinking about this I think I'm wrong. I would bet out. I may have the best hand
and can't run the risk of giving a free card to let someone draw to a better hand.
108
Chris Daddy Cool
This, I think is wrong. I think checkraising here is simply the only option with this many people in the pot.
Do you run the risk of giving free cards? Yes you do, but realize even if you do bet out, everybody will call
anyways. The pot's already laying everybody good pot odds, so you must do anything in your power to win
the pot, and checkraising this flop is the best way to do it. Is it bad if an overcard falls? Yes, but overcards
will call you anyways on this board.
This is a very easy c/r IMO. Note though if a player to your close left bets, I would just call and then lead
the turn and hope he raises. The further away the bet is from you, the more perfect c/r becomes.
Generally the idea is that you don't always checkraise just your super hands and super draws, you also
should be checkraising quite frequently with vurnurable hands, like this case.
Let the debate begin, coldcalling suited connectors
Chris Daddy Cool
party 15/30 plenty loose plenty aggressive
utg openraiser. don't know jack about him. 4 coldcallers. i'm on the button with 8
but bb is loose. do i have a call here?
7
. sb i don't know,
i know sfer and others are in the "never coldcall with suited connectors" camp, but lets start this debate up
again.
chief444
I would call here.
sfer
i know sfer and others are in the "never coldcall with suited connectors" camp, but lets start this debate up
again.
Okay. Fold. Would you limp after 5 limpers if you somehow knew that the pot in this particular hand was
going to be half the size of the average pot at the table?
Chris Daddy Cool
actually i'm pretty sure the blinds are calling, making it 8 way action if i call.
but consider. table is aggressive. and hands tend to be played more aggressively in raised pots. with 7 other
players in, lots of money will go in. i'm on the button. doesn't that counterbalance some of the implied odds
that we initially lose preflop?
i think a better way to anaylize this hand is to calculate 87s "fair share" and how many bets need to be made
up postflop or something like that.
sublime
chris-
109
you can call here in this spot. your relative position is pretty good, you have a decent hand and the chance
of a 3-bet is reduced greatly.
cpk
Ask and thou shalt receive.
The share against 5 opponents is 18.9%. .189 * 11.5 = 2.1735. Calling makes money now, despite lower
implied odds.
The share against 7 opponents is 15.0%. .150 * 14 = 2.10.
This actually supports 3-betting if you didn't think you'd be capped. Something to think about.
cpk
Okay. Fold. Would you limp after 5 limpers if you somehow knew that the pot in this particular hand was
going to be half the size of the average pot at the table?
Irrelevant. Equity is 2.17; calling makes money now even if absolutely no more money goes into the pot.
sfer
I'm beginning to be convinced otherwise. What are the ranges of hands you used?
Trix
Looks like an easy call to me. I think it´s close if there was only 3 coldcallers. Not sure if close call or fold
though.
Munga30
but consider. table is aggressive. and hands tend to be played more aggressively in raised pots. with 7
other players in, lots of money will go in. i'm on the button. doesn't that counterbalance some of the
implied odds that we initially lose preflop?
So, most frequently, you're going to flop a draw and pay through the nose on at least the flop and often the
turn? Sweet. Value-jamming aside, this doesn't sound like an optimal situation.
OTOH, I know you will play this better than most opponents, let alone the LL players who should,
according to Clarkmeister, unlearn this cold-call. His argument is that you will frequently flop weakish
hands, like second or third pair and backdoor flush draw, that's difficult to play and may have you chasing
along. You will play well in these types of situations, I think, and can take them on when the situation is
right.
Ultimately, I think the more pressing consideration is whether you are likely to collect multiple BBs on the
turn and/or river when you are best. Your opponents must pay you off to make this worthwhile.
sublime
OTOH, I know you will play this better than most opponents, let alone the LL players who should,
according to Clarkmeister, unlearn this cold-call.
in clarks example you are in a shitty position, trapped between two people who like thier hands a lot. in
CDC's case you have good relative position in a hand that will have more participants to boot.
EDIT: his button scenario has one or two callers. this has four. i would say its swings the pendelum in your
favor.
steamboatin
I call. If the flop misses me completely, I am gone. If I get a decent piece of it I chase, assuming the pot is
big.
I am open to other opinions but I understand the best hand to play against AA is medium suited connectors
because you have lots of outs.
110
mistrpug
I never cold call with suited connectors. In doing so, I don't think I'm missing out on much value if any at
all.
This should be a poll.
Luke
CDC,
I'd make this call and 4 CCers with the button is where I draw the line. With only 3 CCers or take me off the
button, I'm folding.
My feeling is that the extra opponents obviously provide greater immediate odds, but they also give me
more players that might pay me off when I hit a big hand like a flush or straight.
And with my overall and relative position to the PF raiser, I stand to gain a lot of bets by trapping callers if I
hit one of my hands.
Stu Pidasso
Player 1 (UTG)
AA-TT, AKs-AQs, KQs, AKo-AQo, KQo
4 cold callers
JJ-22, AKs-A2s, KQs-K9s, QJs-Q9s, JTs-J9s, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s, AKo-A2o, KQo-K9o, QJo-Q9o,
JTo-J9o, T9o
The Hero
8h7h
Small Blind and Big Blind
random
The sim was 2 million hands.
Given these hand ranges the equity breaks down as follows.
Player 1 (UTG)
20.189%
4 cold callers
11.372% each
The Hero
15.263%
Small Blind and Big Blind
9.527% each
When the small and big blind are eliminated the heros equity increases to 19.105%
There is money to be had in this hand.
sfer
This convinces me that I'm wrong. Commence cool-calling.
EDIT: Someone want to sim down to 45s and 57s?
111
MAxx
do the sims take into account all the times i would fold bottom pair no kicker, when it was actually best
hand? does the sim know when not to fold when others do not. Is the sim a calling station? What is the sim
winning with, is he showing down any piece of the board?
i am asking these questions, b/c like sfer i was in the nocall camp. i am beginning to consider it, but i still
dont trust it.
cpk
Runner-runner and bottom pair upgrades account for only a fraction of the equity of hands like this. Most
help for most hands comes from the flop. If you really want to be anal about it, your implied odds definitely
more than make up the difference. That's why I don't really worry about it too much.
cpk
Study this chart: http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Value.htm
Note that there is a limit. Also, the crappier suited connectors have a "peaking" effect and lose a bit of
equity with full fields. That's why one could consider three-betting in some cases, as bizarre as that may
sound.
A common objection to such charts is (a) hot-and-cold simulations include the times you get lucky with
runner-runner and improving bottom pair, and (b) there's something called the horse-race fallacy that
wrecks weaker hands' equity. However, most of the help for weak hands actually comes from the flop-runner-runner is a very small part of the equity. For the rest, you can offset any further true loss of equity
with implied odds--you still have decent implied odds--probably enough to call cold even when the equity is
slightly below 2.
Therefore, I don't worry so much about these edge cases. I know I'm doing the right thing if something nets
me a tenth of a bet or more immediately. This gives me a margin for safety and allows me to avoid marginal
situations that may be compromised by the rake.
Stu Pidasso
do the sims take into account all the times i would fold bottom pair no kicker, when it was actually best
hand? does the sim know when not to fold when others do not. Is the sim a calling station? What is the sim
winning with, is he showing down any piece of the board?
The sim I ran is a monte carlo sim. The difference between what I ran and the GoCee charts is I put 87s
against the range of hands I thought the opponents likely held as opposed to purely random hands.
The results I came up with were very close to the GoCee charts. I now feel a lot more confident in using the
GoCee chart to see how hands such as smaller suited connectors and suited gappers run.
Rudbaeck
Call, call or call. Mhm.
Ok, I pretty recently got converted to the call camp here. I guess I always reckoned I had more than a fair
share of the equity here, but that the +EV was small and the +SD was large. Weak-tight me no like that.
But there is money on the table that is 'rightfully' mine. Gimme!
112
Odd AA hand
Chris Daddy Cool
As usual no reads, but my opponents haven't done anything stupid at least I don't think.
Party Poker 15/30 Hold'em (5 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is Button with A , A .
1 fold, MP raises, Hero 3-bets, 1 fold, BB caps, MP calls, Hero calls.
Flop: (12.66 SB) 2 , T , 7 (3 players)
BB bets, MP calls, Hero raises, BB 3-bets, MP calls, Hero calls.
Turn: (10.83 BB) 8 (3 players)
BB bets, MP raises, Hero calls, BB 3-bets, MP calls, Hero caps, BB calls, MP calls.
River: (22.83 BB) Q (3 players)
BB checks, MP checks, Hero bets
anybody care to comment on what i was thinking?
Entity
Trying to get the guy with JJ to stick in there as long as possible while you're chopping with the other AA?
meep_42
Does the other AA slow down on the river? This is a pretty innocuous board.
I'd say CDC calls the 3-bet on the flop to pop the turn against KK-QQ and catch MP in the middle. When
MP raises, you go dormant, begging for a 3-bet from BB so you can trap MP again. The river is a standard
value bet.
meep_42
In retrospect, I suppose BB could slow down with AA, worried about TTT, but I don't see it.
Nate tha' Great
rockets overdrove?
113
listen to their engine sound:
chop, chopity chop
DeathDonkey
Looks like you got worried about MP on the turn, but when he only called the 3 bet from BB, you decided
he didn't have you beat after all, so you capped since you are no worse than tied with BB.
PokerProdigy
BB probably has pocket aces two, thats the only thing I'm thinking given the action (and the fact you posted
this hand ).
PokerBob
You are not behind, is what you were thinking. What kind of hand cold caps form the BB??? AA or
MAYBE KK, but he;s not going to war with KK with all of that turn action, as he'd have to fear AA. You
have that poor sap trapped in the middle with JJ or KK. TT is unlikely from BB, as is QQ. Ni han.
Chris Daddy Cool
so i'm calling the flop 3-bet so i can raise the turn, but when MP comes to life i can't be too sure my hand is
good enough to 3-bet as i could be up against a set or whatever, but you really cant fold in these spots 5
handed or else they'll run you over, and i figure bb is going to wisen up and not go nuts with his overpair
after mp comes to life so calling down is going to cost me 3bb's rather than like 8 or whatever if they go
nuts against each other.
but bb 3-bets anyways, and mp only calls. thus i know mp can't have my AA beat and unless bb has TT,
which is less likely since he capped preflop and according to bayes. he likely has AA-JJ here, so easy turn
cap. (when was the last time you call/capped the turn with one pair?)
and easy river bet.
bb had KK and mp had AT
frank_iii
Are you folding to a river check-raise?
PokerBob
No way in hell.
frank_iii
Ok. It seemed to me to be a horrible spot to fold but I didn't quite understand the drama in the original "BB
checks, MP checks, Hero bets" line...as if there was some doubt behind the value bet.
27offsooot
MP would have capped the turn with a better hand than yours. Since he didn't, u have the best hand. Nice
turn cap.
114
GuyOnTilt Section
GuyOnTilt (or GoT as you will see it a lot) is probably one of the best players on 2+2. If he’s not up in the
upper echelon of posters (being able to tell a difference in players that much more skilled than me is
certainly outside my grasp), he at least puts as much thought into the game and his plays as any of them.
If you look into the math he uses, and the calculations he does, you can understand how much a game like
this really is just a giant math problem. In fact, if you aren’t always trying to put your opponents on ranges
of hands, and at least guesstimating at the math that he does, you are going to stunt your poker growth. It’s
even more important that you take the time to do some of these calculations all the way through after a
session, or at some point when you are reviewing your play. The more of them you do, the better you will
be able to estimate your percentages and discern your highest EV play while sitting in a game.
Read and re-read these threads, because they contain some of the best advice in the entire collection. When
GoT makes a hand post it seems to bring out a murder’s row of respondents, all of whom are highly
respected members of 2+2. “Ed Miller will just love this one: KK in MP” is probably one of the best
threads in the entire archives when it comes to discussion between the best posters. It’s great to be able to
get inside of their heads, and they all go into amazing detail on situations, and reads in this thread.
I included a thread from The Dude because he’s GoT’s roommate, so it’s practically the same person, the
hand was actually played by GoT, and he gives most of the responses in the thread.
115
Commerce 2/4 : TT on the Button
GuyOnTilt
Lots of multiway pots, cold-calling EP raises, J4o at showdown, etc. No tricky opponents, no solid
opponents, just fish. Isn't the Commerce great?
We're 8-handed at the moment. UTG open-raises and is called in 3 places. I'm on the Button with T
and call as well. Both blinds drop out and we're 5-handed to the flop for 11.5 SB's.
Flop comes: 5
5
T
3
UTG bets out, all call to me. I call. 8.5 BB's.
Turn comes: 5
[5
5
3
]
UTG now checks and everybody checks to me. UTG is smart enough to maybe makes this play with AA,
but most likely has no full house. I bet, all call. 13.5 BB's.
River comes: 9
[5
5
5
3
]
It's checked to the player on my right who bets. Not sure what this means other than a full house. I call.
Ho-Hum on every street?
GoT
Ed Miller
Tree bets preflop.
GuyOnTilt
Hey MK,
Yeah, I considered it but then wussed out and cold-called. How low of a pair would you 3-bet with here,
knowing that your opponents are calling stations postflop?
Trix
The only thing I see that you can do differently is raising the flop, but I would rather play it like you did and
just call, since raising wont cut their odds down much. SOP for people with trips in these games would most
likely be raising on the turn, so seeing the turn card and action before you raise is probably better.
116
Turn card seems nice, would have done the same.
On the river, going for the seems good unless you think you will win more by raising. There are two players
left to act after UTG, so I dont even think he will 3Bet if he has the aces, so again, whatever gains the most
money.
What were you doing in a 2/4 game anyway ?
Joe Tall
How low of a pair would you 3-bet with here, knowing that your opponents are calling stations postflop?
TT
Raise the flop. Such LLers like to see the turn, they are more apt to call the flop raise.
Added: I raise the river.
RE-EDITED: I only saw that you called the river and didn't realize everyone was still live on the river,
therefore calling and going for overcalls is surely correct.
Peace,
Joe Tall
Ed Miller
How low of a pair would you 3-bet with here, knowing that your opponents are calling stations postflop?
Eh.. not much lower. Maybe nines and eights. Tens for sure, though. You are just going to win the pot so
much more often than twenty percent of the time... I'd guess more like thirty percent.
In these California low-limit games (where low-limit sometimes means up to 40-80 as Clark knows best),
you really need to push your edges preflop as they arise. Don't worry that much about being dominated...
there is so much dead money in the pot to compensate for that chance. TT has a big money edge over the set
of hands you are going to face in this situation. Hell, even if Mister Raiser has AA, you probably still win
almost twenty percent of the time.
GuyOnTilt
Hey JT,
Why do I want to raise the flop?
Ed Miller (*In response to Joe Tall)
I disagree with you on both counts. I like GoT's postflop play.
On the flop, a raise clearly makes money (that is, you will win this pot more often than twenty percent of the
time). But I think waiting for the turn makes even more. If you wait for the turn, three good things happen:
1. You can see if a bad card (e.g. an overcard) comes off and play cautiously if that happens
2. You can see if someone is slowplaying trips, because they have to raise before the action gets to you.
3. If the turn is a good one for you, your raise is huge. If the guy on your left bets, you trap all these guys for
two bets. If the guy on your right bets (preferred), you face the field with two bets cold. Very strong.
On the river, GoT has essentially the nuts. There is no hand that beats him that would possibly fold for two
bets. So the raise would be for value... but I think you get more value by just calling and going for overcalls.
These guys are real loose; you could easily get two weak overcalls on a board like this.
EDIT: The river decision is close, though. You could easily have your raise called in two places as well.
If these guys are REALLY loose, raising may, in fact, be better.
117
Joe Tall
Why do I want to raise the flop?
Bigger pot, but I see Major's going to ram an LL lesson up my butt. I'll head to his reply to see if I
change my mind. I assume he's coming at me with the idea to raise the turn, which I assume is what you
were going to do?
I 3-bet preflop, so maybe I can't think of how to play this flop after you cold-called.
On to lesson from Ed,
Joe Tall
Joe Tall
On the flop, a raise clearly makes money (that is, you will win this pot more often than twenty percent of
the time). But I think waiting for the turn makes even more. If you wait for the turn, three good things
happen:
1. You can see if a bad card (e.g. an overcard) comes off and play cautiously if that happens
2. You can see if someone is slowplaying trips, because they have to raise before the action gets to you.
3. If the turn is a good one for you, your raise is huge. If the guy on your left bets, you trap all these guys
for two bets. If the guy on your right bets (preferred), you face the field with two bets cold. Very strong.
Thx Ed.
The over-aggressive LarryJoeFish still lives inside of me and I quickly think, F-them, raise.
After I replied I realized the raising a blank on the turn would give GoT a better chance of dragging the
overall pot.
Thank you again. I'll buy you a beer when I'm out on the 18th of this month; I actually owe you more than
one.
GuyOnTilt
Bigger pot
You really don't want a bigger pot here. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...
But yeah, I guess you read MK's post and get it now, so nevermind.
GuyOnTilt
Well, this actually wasn't a 2/4 hand, but the table was playing so much like one that I thought this was the
appropriate forum for it. I was actually sitting 20/40 at the Commerce.
Final board: 5 5 3 5 9
LMP bet, I call, UTG calls, and one other MP calls.
LMP turns over A9o, I turn TT, all others muck.
I completely agree that I should've 3-bet this hand preflop. After the flop, I thought I played reasonably, but
just wanted to illustrate how raising the flop in a large multiway pot with an overpair or other good hand
isn't always correct. I have to remind myself sometimes that auto-pilot isn't good...
That's all I got!
bernie
118
i thought ya played it fine. i'd want to raise the flop, but you're not getting anyone out. the bettor is in a bad
spot for this. which blows, since your hand is vulnerable. so i agree with calling, biting my lip that i'd have
to play that way.
but the turn play of the opponents, tells you all you need to know for the river play.
only thing i'd do different is 3 bet preflop. it can make the rest of the hand easier to play readwise.
ajizzle
Just as fish over-value their bad hands, they also have the same tendencies to under-value their good hands.
This is a trend that I have seen on all of the low limit tables online and live play. Someone may call me all
the way with A high when I'm holding a flush, but they may just call me down when the board is paired and
they have an overpair.
This is specifically the dilemma you are in this hand. The MP player who bets the river in front of you may
have A high, which he thinks is good with three fives out, or he may have something as strong as JJ. I
wouldn't suspect anything stronger from the bettor on the river, for even the worst players would most likely
three bet PF with AA or KK with an UTG raise and a few callers.
As for UTG, I wouldn't have too much of a worry for him. He could have your hand beat, but since he didn't
C/R the turn, it is unlikely that he will C/R the river with a better hand. On the same note, it is unlikely that
you are going to push off any better hands on the river by raising. Therefore, you must weigh the odds
between raising and losing, raising and winning, and calling and winning. In which situation will you make
the most bets? In which will you lose the most?
I think a raise for value on the river is the best move here, in that these weak players will call with any 9,
any 3, any pocket pair, and some will call two bets with any A.
Hope Cali is going well.
119
My Duel with ThingDo : 2/4 Party
GuyOnTilt
So ThingDo is nice enough to inform me that a maniac is sitting at Table X on Party, and invites me to join
him for a little game of "fight over the maniac." I happen to get an open seat on the maniac's left, with
ThingDo 2 seats to my left. Life is goooood.
I'm dealt 8
8
Flop comes: T
UTG+1. Maniac limps, I limp, ThingDo limps, MP limps, SB completes, BB checks.
8
6
Life just got better! Checked to the maniac who bets, I raise, ThingDo 3-bets. MP calls 3 cold, maniac
folds, I call. 3 to the turn for 8 BB's.
Turn comes: 4
[T
8
6
]
I check, ThingDo bets, MP calls. I check-raise, ThingDo 3-bets, MP calls, I cap, all call. 3 to the river for
20 BB's.
River comes: T
[4
T
8
6
]
I bets, ThingDo calls, MP folds.
Pop-Quiz!!!
1) What is ThingDo's hand?
2) I thought I made one mistake in this hand. What was it?
3) What were ThingDo's mistakes?
Answers and Results to come.
crockpot
if my card reading skills are sharp, he should have either a set of sixes or a 97s, possibly in clubs.
i'm guessing your mistake was not capping the flop.
Gomez22
I'm not too good at all this hand reading crap without being there, and even then not real good yet, but let's
see.....
1)I would think ThingDo had 75s (clubs would been nice) or maybe 66.
2)You shoulda capped the flop.
120
3)I think if ThingDo had 75s, he shoulda tried for a check-raise on the turn (especially if he had clubs).
AND... If he had 75s what was he doing playing it here?(Of course, I'm a rookie, and I'm not really good
enough to play 75s except from the button or blinds).
I WAS thinking ThingDo had 97s, but that doesn't make sense with his play on the turn.
Oh, well..... probably way off base here, but those are my thoughts.
me454555
1)Only hand I can see thingdo limping with from early mp and raising like a madman on the flop and turn is
66. No way does he limp w/97s or 75s w/only 2 limpers in ealry middle position. Anything higher than
pocket 10s and he raises preflop.
2) I don't think you made any mistakes. I like not capping the flop in favor of check raiseing the turn.
3) Thingdo's big mistake was 3 betting the turn. You showed that you had a good hand on flop by reraising
the maniac, calling the 3bet on the flop, and check raising the turn. With a scary bored, after you check
raised him on the turn he should have just called the turn and check called the river.
GuyOnTilt
I think if ThingDo had 75s, he shoulda tried for a check-raise on the turn (especially if he had clubs).
What makes you think that the MP would bet the turn for him?
elindauer
1) What is ThingDo's hand?
I believe ThingDo has JJ.
A 6 ... why does he 3-bet the flop? and the turn?
AA, KK, QQ... no raise preflop?
J 9 ... why is he calling the river?
66, 97s... no river raise? The ten is scary given your opponents tremendous show of strength... he can't hope
he's beating 2 pair any more. It's possible he just called with one of these hands.
2) I thought I made one mistake in this hand. What was it?
Damn if I know.
3) What were ThingDo's mistakes?
If he has 97 or 66, smooth calling the flop might be better, hoping to keep the maniac around and pumping
it up. He's not likely to lose a flush draw with his 3-bet.
If he has JJ, I'd be more inclined to fold the turn than to 3-bet.
ALL1N
1) If he has 97 or 66, smooth calling the flop might be better
Sorry but that just put me off dinner.
elindauer
What a tremendously insightful post. Thank you for blessing us with your commentary.
GuyOnTilt
121
I think I sense some sarcasm here...Really though, he's right. 66 and 97s should both be 3-betting this flop.
Smooth-calling would be a mistake IMO. With 97s it would be more acceptable than with 66. The presence
of a maniac in the pot should be enough to get rid of any thoughts of slow-playing.
ThingDo
WEEEEEEELLLLL... I'll wait for the results to be posted... but I'll say that I think my mistake was raising
the turn and I'll give a hint as to what GOT's mistake was... I would have bet the river if checked to.
elindauer
Anyways, about the 3-bet... I don't understand your logic. If you just call, the maniac still has a chance to
raise... it's already been raised once between you and him. When you flop the nuts, the last thing you want is
to knock a maniac out the hand, right? Isn't he your greatest ally in this situation?
If you call and the maniac 3-bets, the original raiser is quite likely to a) put you on a draw, and b) decide
that he has the maniac beaten. This may well cause him to cap it, maybe even drawing dead.
Better yet, you're likely to get lots of action when a blank hits and you still hold a monster (97 or 66), but
things may tend to slow down if a club hits and you need to redraw yourself (66). Where is the downside
again?
Worst case, you lose a 2 BBs total from the maniac and original raiser on the flop. Best case, you gain godonly-knows-how-many from them both when the maniac drives the raiser into you on the flop and turn, but
would have folded to your flop 3-bet.
Eihli
Because he wouldn't have capped the turn on a flush draw with only 2 other people in the hand.
Eihli
He had to be holding JJ. He would be much more likely to limp with JJ than with 79 and I think 66 would
be putting in one last raise on the river.
ThingDo
What else can I possibly put such a reasonable opp. as far as pre-flop standards on? I can't put him on 97.. I
can't put him on AT, he didn't raise PF to try to isolate the maniac limper so that rules out TT. We both
telegraphed our hands. It was clear that I had 66 and the only reasonable hand I can see him having is 88.
He knows I raise with TT and JJ so those are out of the question and I don't limp with 97 in MP after two
limpers so really the range of hands he can put me on is very small thus he should have tryed a checkraise
on the river knowing my hand improved to a boat. Anyway, just my thought process... and I knew I made a
mistake my 3-betting the turn. I was almost certain he had 88, so I should have seen the showdown as
cheaply as possible IMO
GuyOnTilt
1) What is ThingDo's hand?
After the flop 3-bet by ThingDo, I put him on 66, ATs, or J9c. After he 3-bets my Turn check-raise, he can
only have 66. He would not have limped in from that position with 97s, JJ, TT, or other hands that people
guessed. He did, in fact, have 66.
2) I thought I made one mistake in this hand. What was it?
I don't think that not capping the flop was a mistake. However, once I knew ThingDo's hand, I believe I
should have checked the river. I think he would bet the river with a full house, even though if he thought it
through for a while, the only hand that I could have is 88. I considered it briefly, but wussed out. That was
definitely my mistake: should have check-raised the river.
3) What were ThingDo's mistakes?
He should not have 3-bet the turn. What hands could I have here that he can beat?? None. The pot is
122
protected so a semi-bluff is out of the question. I am not getting value by c/r'ing with any draw. The only
hand I could possibly have here is a hugely overplay ATs, and the chances of me being so over-aggressive
with it are very, very slim.
elindauer
Having read your and ThingDo's analysis of this hand, it's clear that you are thinking differently than me. I
have to conclude that you're both either really good, or really predictable.
Honestly, I don't know which right now. I'm going to do some serious thinking about it. You might consider
what it means that you believe both hands could have been deduced so clearly.
Perhaps you gave away your hand here, but it cost your opponent a lot to figure it out, so much that he can't
take advantage of your strategy. Or maybe it just rarely happens that you give away your hand like this, so
your strategy isn't exploitable. I'll think about it.
Thanks for the interesting post.
GuyOnTilt
What makes our play so predictable is, 1) we both know that the other is a good player, and 2) the
involvement of the MP in the hand. Without the 3rd person there, this hand could've gone many different
ways and neither of us would've been able to get a clear read on each other's hands. However, in this
particular hand, I think after the turn, both of our hands are basically face up.
ThingDo
Hi elindauer,
Thanks for the response. Earlier in the session GOT told me he tossed TT on the turn ( which was an
overpair ) because he couldn't me on anything other than a set. He was right, I did in fact have a set. I think
my play is just very predictable and I was trying to find ways to adjust my play while who I regard as a very
good solid player was at the table. Turns out it didn't matter ( at the time ) as I had to leave shortly after the
hand. All that being said, I think its quite easy to put GOT on a hand here as I can narrow his range of hands
that he would play from that position the way he played it. Personally I think we both telegraphed our
hands, but I doubt anything that I could have done would have been able to change it. Anyway, just
something to think about.
123
Ed Miller will just love this one: KK in MP
GuyOnTilt
A couple nights ago, I played on Paradise's 3/6 tables for a couple hours. Don't ask me why; weird, dumb
story. But anyways, the point is, I was there.
The first hour goes by, and nothing interesting really happens. I play a few hands, get decent reads on
everybody, ho hum. Then I find myself in MP after 1 weak/tight EP limper with K K and I raise. I get
a cold-call in the CO from an ABC player who shows a decent amount of aggression and seems to be a solid
player. The SB calls, the BB calls, the weak-tight limper calls, and we're 5-handed to a beautiful flop for 10
SB's.
Flop comes: Q
6
4
Pretty. The blinds both check to weak-tightie and he bets out. I raise, CO cold-calls, and the blinds fold. EP
just calls. Three of us see the turn for 7.5 BB's after the rake.
Turn comes: J
[Q
6
4
]
Now the EP player bets out again. Usually this player is passive, but he's used this stop-and-go once before
and was called down and showed only top pair, and the CO's still behind me, so I decide I've gotta raise,
and so raise I do! Unfortunately, the CO now 3-bets me. EP calls, and I call. 3 to the river for 16.5 BB's.
River comes: 7
[J
Q
6
4
]
EP checks, I check, CO bets, EP calls, I fold. One bet. Overpair. Uncoordinated board. Gynormous 18.5
BB pot. Closing the action. And yes, I fold without any remorse.
So how'd I do?
GoT
bunky9590
very tight aggressive player (you) raises once, gets coldcalled (preflop and flop) and then gets three bet on
the turn? Looks like QQ or JJ from the CO. i could be wrong however, but looks like a monster from the
CO and strong hand from EP. I think you could be in second or third place here.
But you better trust that read very well to make the laydown.
My guess is CO has QQ and waited to see an undercard flop.
GuyOnTilt
Hey Bunky,
The CO had 3-bet preflop with JJ before, so I don't think he'll have QQ or JJ here very often. I said he
124
shows a decent amount of aggression...
BigEndian
Why'd you call the turn? Especially if your plan was to fold the river unimproved. Did you put the CO on 2pair? I put him on a set and fold the turn.
bunky9590
Still smells like a set slowplayed on the flop. unless he has AQs, and you are still kicking yourself this
morning.
Joe Tall
He cold called you w/66 or 44. Raised the the turn in what surely would be a protected pot on the river.
I was going to ask why you called the turn if you were folding the the river but you're getting 16:1 coming
back on the turn just enough to river a set as he will surely go to war with his and with the call station you
can get at least 2 from each with a c/r.
That's what I think you were thinking.
BigEndian
If a K rivers and he has a baby set, there's isn't going to be a war with a KQJ board and a PF raise. I thik
calling here trying to make up that gap from 16-1 to 20-1 in implied odds is wrong.
Homer
Did you put the CO on 2-pair? I put him on a set and fold the turn.
You put him on a set with 100% likelihood? The pot is so large that there only has to be a small chance of
his opponent having two-pair for GOT to call one more bet and see the river card.
BigEndian
With the 3-bet on the turn, I think it's likely enough. Part of this fold on the turn would be as a safty against
making a weak call on the river - as I sometimes am want to do (I'm sure I'm not alone).
Do people really qualify this as a large pot? I'd put it in the medium range for a good table.
gonores
CO's hand, in order of likelyhood
QJs
66
44
AQ
JJ
QQ
You have to call the turn with a chance to counterfeit 2 pair along with the chance to hit your set.
The fold is really, really close, but I think I like it.
scrub
Do people really qualify this as a large pot
It's only small in magical Party online fairytaleland. It's a big pot anywhere else.
Particularly in the context of "should I call for one bet closing the action with a hand that is likely to be
beaten?" It's the kind of fold I always think I ought to make, but after being wrong one too many times, I've
stopped making. Even if I think it's the right play maybe even saving me as much as 0.3 BB, I think it takes
125
a year off my life every time I'm wrong...
I'd do it against a player I knew well, I'd do it against an unknown opponent at a higher limit, and I'd do it
live. But not online against a guy I've been playing with for an hour at 3/6. It's just too big of a pot.
GuyOnTilt
With the 3-bet on the turn, I think it's likely enough.
I'm getting an immediate 15.5:1 on my call. Against a set, I'll river a winner once every 21 times, so I'm
losing 5.5 BB's every 21 occurances, for an average of -.38 BB's per occurance. If he has 2 pair Queens and
Jacks, I'll river a winner once every 5.5 times, so I'm winning 10 BB's every 5.5 occurances, for an average
of +1.82 BB's per occurance. So if I only give my opponent this hand-set, my call is profitable if he has a
set less than 82.7% of the time. Do you think it's higher than that?
If so, add in my implied odds. Let's say I give myself 2 BB's worth for hitting my set, and .5 BB worth for
hitting my 2-pair (since I'd only check and call, and sometimes will still lose to a set). Reasonable
estimations, in my opinion. Now that number goes up to 90.95% (-.19 BB/occurance and +1.91
BB/occurance, respectively). Do you think he have a set more often than 90.95% of the time here?? If so,
add into the hand-set an AQ that is planning to check through the river unimproved, which is definitely a
slight possibility.
In my opinion, the opponent I described will not have a set here more than 90.95% of the time, and so I
have a clear-cut call on the turn. To be honest, at the time the hand took place, the number 70% popped into
my mind, and so I didn't even bother running the quick mental math because I knew it had to be far higher
than that. Now I know precisely how high, to one-hundredth of a percent.
sthief09
Maybe I'm just confused here, but let's say there's an x% chance your opponent has a set. Regardless of
what x is, you're still going to make 1 BB in implied odds on the river with 2 pair IF your opponent has 2
pair, just like how you're going to make 2 BB on the river IF your opponent has a set. You aren't factoring x
into your calculations until later, but by discounting 1 BB to .5, you're actually considering it now. So it
seems like you should be getting 1 BB implied odds for 2 pair.
But you're a hell of a lot better at this stuff than I am, so what do I know?
GuyOnTilt
You're right in that regardless of what x is, you'll still make the same in implied odds. I was simply giving
myself 2 BB's in implied odds for a set because I'd go for a check-raise. Sometimes it'd get checked through
(+0 BB's), sometimes the CO would bet, EP would call, I'd raise, CO would call, EP would call (+4 BB's)
or fold (+3 BB's), and sometimes the CO would bet, EP would fold, I'd raise and CO would call (+2 BB's).
So I didn't want to take the time to put probabilities on all those scenarios and calculate out the average
implied odds I'd give myself and just picked 2 BB's as a reasonable estimate. Although it's probably a little
on the conservative side, given EP's semi cold-call on the turn.
For the 2 pair implied odds, I would check-call the river. So sometimes it'd get checked through (+0 BB's),
sometimes EP would call as well and I'd win (+2 BB's), and sometimes EP would fold and I'd win (+1 BB).
Also, I threw in my reverse implied odds in there as well, since there will be times where I will hit my 2-pair
and still lose (-1 BB). So I gave myself .5 BB's in implied odds here. Maybe a bit low, but still reasonable.
Anyways, I tried to err on the conservative side for implied odds. If you think they're higher than what I
calculated for then adjust accordingly. But you get the idea...
sthief09
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
GuyOnTilt
126
Hey gonores,
If you put percentages next to each one of those hands you list, then you'll know FOR SURE whether you
like my river fold or not.
Joe Tall
If a K rivers and he has a baby set, there's isn't going to be a war with a KQJ board and a PF raise. I thik
calling here trying to make up that gap from 16-1 to 20-1 in implied odds is wrong.
I should have added the 2-pair possiblities.
Are you saying that if I check to you aren't going to bet your set of 6s if a K hits?
You will, the call-station will call and I'll c/r, now you will fold?
You won't, the call station will call, and I'll get 4.
BigEndian
I'm afraid I don't have the mind for numbers like you do. My gut feel is that it's a very marginal situation. I
think your numbers show this, but the thing with gut feels is that they don't do well discerning marginal+ or
marginal-.
Curious though, would you still make the call if the turn put a three flush (not of your KKs suits) on the
board with the same action?
Trix
I wouldn´t make that fold, but I think it was good and will be good often enough.
No matter what he showed you, he missplayed it somewhere.
My guess is QJs or AA.
I cant think of a preflop coldcalling hand that you are behind though.
You dont think there is any chance of him coldcalling with AQ and then 3betting turn, cuz he knew that you
could fold ?
GuyOnTilt
I'm afraid I don't have the mind for numbers like you do. My gut feel is that it's a very marginal situation. I
think your numbers show this, but the thing with gut feels is that they don't do well discerning marginal+
or marginal-.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Instead of just thinking things like, "My hand's probably beat," or
"My hand's probably good," start getting in the habit of thinking, "My hand's good here n% of the time,"
and "my opponent will have this hand n% of time." You don't have to be good with numbers at all to make
these reads-based estimates. This will help a lot in determining whether a situation is +marginal or
-marginal.
Curious though, would you still make the call if the turn put a three flush (not of your KKs suits) on the
board with the same action?
No, I wouldnt've called. I think I would've had a clear fold in this situation.
GuyOnTilt
Not that it really matters at all in this one, but the CO had Q J and EP had Q
it up. I did have to change my view of the CO's solidity (??) after this hand.
J
and they chopped
After this hand, I noticed how easy my fold on the river seemed to be for me and how I didn't sweat it or
even contemplate a call. I knew on the turn that I was making a drawing call, and then I missed on the river.
I knew I was check-raising a set and check-calling if the board paired low. But with this new looser attitude
on these board, I could just see this same hand being posted here with the phrase "crying call" stuck on the
end instead of "I folded" like it should've. Just making sure we all still aren't making -EV calls just because
the pot's "too big to fold for one bet."
127
I really would be very happy with this forum if the term "crying call" was NEVER, EVER used again. Calls
on the river should be determined using pot odds. Calculate them. Use whatever reads you have, past action,
opponents' tendencies, how they view you, etc., but come up with a solid, concrete number. My hand's good
here 1 out of 8 times, or 1 out of 13.5 times, or 1 out of 17 times. Then look at the pot. If you're getting the
pot odds to make that call based on your number, then you should call. If you're not getting correct odds,
even if it's by a small percentage, then you have a CLEAR, CLEAR, CLEAR fold. It really is that simple, as
blurry and fuzzy as we've tried to make it.
It should also be noted that if you're not closing the action and there's a decent chance of a raise behind you,
you need better than your immediate pot odds to call.
Keep on pokering.
Dylan Wade
I hate that term too, "Crying Call".
It drives me nuts.
The difficulty I have with these sort of hands is that the river call is entirely based on the % chance your
hand is good, which is largely dependant on your reads on the players. However, I usually have NO reads
on any of the players. Mainly because I like to play multiple tables, and that kills my ability to make reads
on players. So often I'll call the river, because against your average Joe Party player I'm going to have the
best hand often enough that even if calling is a mistake, it's a small one... (I'd rather err on this side, to
prevent players putting plays on me). Of course, if you have these guys pegged down as passive/ABC
straightforward players, calling the river is just not going to work enough..
spamuell
But the point about these "crying calls" when it's close is that your judgement (or my judgement, anyway) is
not accurate, and I'd much rather make the smaller mistake of calling than the larger mistake of folding.
I know that you know this, but for most players who can't make the clear cut reads that some players can, it's
just much easier to make the mistake of calling.
GuyOnTilt
This is the common excuse, yes, but two things are very wrong with this statement. I'll tackle the latter half
first.
...and I'd rather make the smaller mistake of calling than the larger mistake of folding.
I've seen things like this written by posters justifying their so-calling "crying calls" and I've even seen good
posters giving advice along these same lines of thinking, but the fact is, IT'S WRONG. When you make a
river call closing the action, it's either +EV, -EV, or neutral EV. Whether you happen to have the best hand
this pot or not doesn't matter in terms of EV. You're almost never going to be winning the full amount of the
pot or losing the full amount of the call with your decision; you'll simply be winning or losing a fraction of
that big bet, and you'll be winning or losing it EVERY TIME YOU MAKE THAT DECISION. It's EV.
Eventual Value. Everybody who posts regularly on these boards knows this concept and we spout it like
doctrine when talking about preflop and flop action, but somehow refuse to acknowledge it when it comes
to river play. Making a bad call on the river, is making a bad call on the river, is making a bad call on the
river. You'll be losing a fraction of a bet every time you make it, even though you will win the pot
occassionally.
But the point about these "crying calls" when it's close is that your judgement (or my judgement, anyway)
is not accurate...
That's why you must come up with a concrete number. You need to use your reads and say "My hand will
be good here 1 in 7 times" or "1 in 10.5 times." You'll never know +EV from -EV if all that ever goes
through your mind is, "Eh, my hand might be good, so I'll call," or "Yeah, I'm probably beat here, so I guess
128
I'll fold." You need to find a real number. It doesn't really matter much how you come up with that number,
as long as you take everything into consideration to come up with it. As you get better at reading your
opponents and make it harder for your opponents to read you, the number you come up with will get more
and more accurate and you'll be able to have more confidence in your river laydowns and calls, but until
then keep doing the best you can to come up with the most honest number you can.
I know that you know this, but for most players who can't make the clear cut reads that some players can,
it's just much easier to make the mistake of calling.
Yes, I know that making a bad call is EASIER. But if you're making "the mistake in calling", then how can
you really defend it as correct? Sure it may be easier, but wouldn't you rather it be profitable?
My oh-two.
Trix
Good post Guy,
I´m gonna start making these calculations after my sessions. Probably gonna make the "crying calls"
anyways, as I cant make them in 30 sec, but this will improve my chances of estimating the percentages.
GuyOnTilt
Hey Trix,
Absolutely right on. I can't make those type of calculations with such precision in 30 seconds either, but the
more and more I do them off the tables, the more accurately I'm able to estimate them in the heat of battle.
If you spend the time away from the felt to put in this kind of work, it'll come back and pay you off.
Practice makes perfect.
chesspain
I really would be very happy with this forum if the term "crying call" was NEVER, EVER used again. Calls
on the river should be determined using pot odds. Calculate them. Use whatever reads you have, past
action, opponents' tendencies, how they view you, etc., but come up with a solid, concrete number. My
hand's good here 1 out of 8 times, or 1 out of 13.5 times, or 1 out of 17 times. Then look at the pot. If
you're getting the pot odds to make that call based on your number, then you should call. If you're not
getting correct odds, even if it's by a small percentage, then you have a CLEAR, CLEAR, CLEAR fold. It
really is that simple, as blurry and fuzzy as we've tried to make it.
Got,
It really isn't that simple--the reason being that few players, and probably almost no low limit players,
(especially when facing a myriad of unknown, illogical opponents), will ever be able to come up with a
number that is any more than a fuzzy guestimate.
Indeed, I always chuckle when I reread the following passage on pg. 101 of HEFAP:
"...if your opponent has already checked, you should think that you have the best hand 55 percent of the
time that you are called for your bet to be correct (51 percent is not good enough because of the possibility
that you will be checkraised)."
I would be grateful to anyone who can explain the thought processes behind not only coming up with
percentages at showdown, but also having the ability to reliably discern between 55% probability of being
good and 51% probability of being good.
I assume that the concept of "crying call" has come into being specifically because of the near impossibility
of accurately deducing these pot odds, unless one has played many thousands of hands against the same
opponents. Consequently, I further assume that Ed has implored everyone to make most crying calls
129
precisely so that we don't make the catastrophic mistake of folding the best hand when we really have no
way to accurately gauge our pot odds at the end.
Dylan Wade
Here's something I find interesting...
GuyOnTilt could have folded the best hand here and still made a +EV play. MK was simply saying that we
underestimate the impact the pot size should have on our river decisons. Folding the best hand is not always
a catistrophic mistake. In fact, sometimes it may even be correct, (+EV). For instance, we may have a
perfectly accurate % chance our hand is good (albiet impossible to prove or define), make a correct fold on
the river based on that %, and still be +EV while folding the best hand.
GuyOnTilt
...so that we don't make the catastrophic mistake of folding the best hand
There's nothing "catastrophic" about it. It's probabilities. If you make the mistake of folding the best hand in
a big pot when calling would've netted you .3 BB's of EV per occurance, then you didn't lose a whole pot;
you lost .3 BB's. That's no more catastrophic than making a bad call that loses you .3 BB's of EV. The
important thing that players need to do is to try and learn how to distinguish between a -.3 BB situation and
a +.3 BB situation.
Telling them to "call in both because if you are making a mistake it's not a big one," isn't going to develop a
superb poker player. Teaching them how and why provides an opportunity to become much more.
Dylan Wade
Telling them to "call in both because if you are making a mistake it's not a big one," isn't going to develop
a superb poker player. Teaching them how and why provides an opportunity to become much more.
I agree with the intent here (teaching), but I do think that what I mentioned earlier is an exception. Often,
we're making a decision on the river.... Like you said, either -.3 EV or +.3EV... (whatever, some fractional
ammount....) I think when the decision is close, it's safe to err on the call side. If you fold the river, your
opponent's may begin to take shots at you on the river. This changes the dynamic of the game and makes
our decisions on the river more difficult. I can see accepting the loss of .6EV here just so that I don't make a
5BB mistake later (due to a huge miscalculation .... for example a tight player begins to take stone cold
bluff/bluff raises at me on the river)
CrackerZack
There's nothing "catastrophic" about it.
This is wrong. Ask the guy who fold AA when you raised the river with JJ if the mistake was catastrophic?
Did he win that day? Would he have if he won that pot?
Very few people can really tell if they're 90% sure they're beat or 96% sure they're beat. The fact yours was
an overcall makes it a bit easier, but folding for 1 bet, on the river in big pots is generally wrong.
GuyOnTilt
This is wrong.
Why?
Ask the guy who fold AA when you raised the river with JJ if the mistake was catastrophic? Did he win that
day? Would he have if he won that pot?
You mean, it's wrong if the other player had a worse hand? As in, it's wrong if the results of that particular
hand were unfavorable? That's not the way to analyze poker, CZ; you know that. In that particular hand,
how much did my opponent lose by folding? Was it the whole pot? Of course not. It's probabilities,
percentages.
130
How much do I lose if I fold my QQ to a river raise versus a PF 3-bettor when a K hits the river on a T883K
board in a 8 BB pot? The answer depends on the action of the hand, the pot size, my opponent and his
tendencies, how he views me, how he thinks I view him, and so on. But in no way does the amount I won or
lost on my fold depend on the hand he happened to be holding that particular time. EDIT: And in no way is
it anywhere near the sum of the whole pot.
Joe Tall
but folding for 1 bet, on the river in big pots is generally wrong.
Yes, but we cannot ignore the action on the turn given the description of the players. You and I have made
laydowns like this with such reads.
Barry
Well if you mean a crying call when you have no chance of winning, fair enough.
But the times I use it is when I'm near the low end of the probabilities of winning. If there's 11 BB in the pot
and I think that I only have a 10% chance of winning, I call that a "crying call".
el_grande
How can you say that you have to come up with a concrete number and then say it doesn't matter how you
come up with it? That should tell you right there that the number is not sound.
I think you are going overboard with quantitative analysis. You can't reduce your decision down to a
number, even if you had an hour to decide. It can't be done accurately enough. There are things that just
have to be done by feel. It's as legitimate a skill as knowing which hands to play.
What happens if your opponent decided to mix up his play and is doing something out of his playbook? Do
you factor in the percentage of time he might be doing that? What about the guy who feels like bluffing this
hand? The guy who you thought was typical but in reality is solid or a LAG?
The problem is there's no way to prove or disprove whether your number guessing is correct. If I tried using
your method, I guarantee I would end up outsmarting myself.
The way I look at it, if you could CORRECTLY come up with a number that tells you in close situations
whether your river call has positive EV you could predict how microsoft stock will do in the next year. You
can't do it because there are too many human factors.
On another note, regarding "crying call"... I take the term to mean that you thought you were ahead and you
just found out you are probably behind. It doesn't mean you are calling when you have virtually no chance,
or with bad odds.
Nate tha' Great
If you fold the river, your opponent's may begin to take shots at you on the river.
I say stuff like this all the time. I think I just used this exact phrasing in a post in the s/handed forum. But
after thinking about it a bit:
If a fold induced your opponent to believe that you were in fact more inclined to fold than you actually
were, and he began to act on that misinformation and take ill-advised shots at you on the river, would not
that in fact be +EV?
I try and be very aware of situations in which I think I might be *perceived* to have made a big laydown
and believe that I'm sometimes able to realize extra value bets on future hands as a result. Table image is
quite literally what you make of it.
131
Dylan Wade
That's a good point. I think it was my inner-wussy wussy talking. Worrying about players playing back at
you is definitely something to consider in No Limit.... but not here! I stand corrected. That was very
straightforward I don't know why I didn't see it...!
el_grande
I'm replying to myself rather than editing...
My overall point is that to me it is not worth the effort to try and quantify your calls - a method that you can
never be sure improves your play. I say stick with the method of being "fairly sure" or "fairly unsure" that a
call is correct and make your close calls that way.
Focus more effort on learning which plays you need to make before the river to give yourself the best
chance to win money when you get there.
Yeknom58
I've noticed you've been on this horse for a while and and I agree yet disagree.
You state that you should be coming up with a number like you're good 1 in 10 times then look at the pot
and if you're not getting the proper odds then fold. Yes, I agree with that statement, in theory. But then you
go on and state,
"If you're not getting correct odds, even if it's by a small percentage, then you have a CLEAR, CLEAR,
CLEAR fold."
This is where I'm in sort of disagreement. If you have a large pot and you're not getting the proper odds
BUT IT'S CLOSE I think you should be calling. It's not like calculating pot odds for a draw and you know
exactly how many outs you have and how many cards are left in the deck. You're arriving at a number from
facts AND non-conclusive-error wrought evidence. There is an inherient error in your final number because
things like past action, opponents' tendencies, how they view you,etc are not universial constants. So if you
arrive at a number like 1/18 and the pot is laying 1/17 I think you should error on the side of caution and
make the "crying Call". I think your dislike for crying calls are the calls I've seen lately where the pot is like
35BB but your probably only good 1/100.
The Dude
I think you are going overboard with quantitative analysis. You can't reduce your decision down to a
number, even if you had an hour to decide. It can't be done accurately enough.
Not only can it be done accurately enough, it must be done accurately enough. You don't have to be 100%
correct, but you must strive to come as close as you can. Let's say this 'quantitative analysis' that you claim
is overboard tells you your hand must be good 9.3% of the time (this number is easy enough to roughly
calculate on the spot with practice). You decide that your hand is good 10% of the time. If you are wrong,
and your hand is actually good only 8% of the time, you are not making a very big mistake. Notice,
however, you are making a mistake, and it matters not how big the pot is. The only determining factor in
whether or not it is a mistake is your pot odds. But if you never calculate your odds to determine if you
should call or not, you'll never know whether your call was good or not. You'll only be able to guess.
There are things that just have to be done by feel. It's as legitimate a skill as knowing which hands to play.
If you take a deep breath and read his post, that's exactly what he's saying. How you determine how often
your hand is good is done almost entirely by feel. What style does this player use? Would he have bet out
here with these types of hands? What would he have called me with? It is impossible to get precise numbers
from these questions, buy you can (and must) estimate them based on your "feel" of the situation.
Use your feelings and intuition to help you make your decisions, but not as the defining statement. "I think
my hand is good," simply isn't correct. You need to say "I think my hand is good x% of the time," and
compare that to your pot odds.
132
You will always have a significant leak in your game if you never apply this method to determining river
calls.
The Dude
I say stick with the method of being "fairly sure" or "fairly unsure" that a call is correct and make your
close calls that way.
This statement is flat out wrong, and in fact harmful to the aspiring player.
If you want to limit the profitability of your game to "fairly sure," or "fairly unsure," fine. But don't
encourage other aspiring players to make the same mistake. The more practice and effort you put into
making more precise estimates, the more you will make over the long run. This leak alone will prevent you
from winning in semi-difficult games.
Mason Malmuth wrote an essay that pertains to this exact topic. He concludes that the player that you
describe - goes by feel alone in these situation - doesn't stand a chance against the new generation players the ones that GoT describes.
I'll look up that essay and quote it exactly.
The Dude
I found the essay I was looking for. It's titled "Mathematical Winners," and is found on page 45 of "Poker
Essays," by Mason Malmuth. I quote this not because it seems to be breakthrough knowledge - in fact it's
painfully obvious to and I'm sure many others - but because perhaps you will be more prepared to take
Mason's word on the subject than myself or GoT.
...a subject that I think deserves more attention. It is the idea of mathematical players, also known as the
'new breed,' versus the (old time) instincts players. In the past, perhaps just 10 to 15 years ago, all the best
players probably would have fit into the instinct category. These people learned their trade over many
years, slowly became pretty good players, and did win significant amounts of money.
But then something dramatic happened. A new type of player began to appear on the scene. This new
breed approached the game in a much more scientific manner and began to accumluate the chips. The
old-time instinct players never really had a chance....
However, there is a great misconception among non-mathematical players as to what this powerful
winning approach is. It is not 'knowing the odds better,"...
[insert description of 'new breed' players almost identical to what GoT described in approach]
...if your approach to playing poker is not similar to that just described, it is unlikely that you will amount
to more than a marginal winner at the poker table.
I hope Mason doesn't mind me giving such a large excerpt from the book, but there it is. I reccommend all
aspiring player to get ahold of this book, as there is plenty of priceless infomation in its pages - and it's a
nice break from the ABC format that strategy books are written in.
blackaces13
Sorry I have to ask this but why is the CO no longer solid? Where did he mess up this hand?
The Dude
He played very badly preflop, and even worse on the flop. Against an EP limper and MP raiser, QJ is a
terrible hand, suited or not. The probablility that you are either outkicked or up against an overpair is just
too high. If it's one bet to you in LP with QJs, it's fine to play, but not for two cold.
On the flop, there is a bet and a raise in front of him. In his shoes, there are only three cards that can
133
convince me my hand is good (even if another Q comes I'm not convinced), so I am definately not getting
the odds to call two cold, backdoor flush draw included.
It just happened that he hit his J, but this is easily a losing proposition over the long run.
el_grande
Calm down.. you are being very un-dude...
I'm actually not that much of a feel player. I am a computer engineer who loves to make calculations. I
calculate my odds on the river. But I also understand that making calculations when there are social factors
involved is a risky thing. I don't find much value in thinking that you have a 9.3% chance of winning
compared to thinking that your hand wins about 5%-15% of the time.
People want to make precise measurements. Makes a man feel good. But the reality is that if I put you in the
same situation a week later you are likely to come up with a different number. Your number might be 8% or
10%. We aren't robots. The human mind is not that exact. We can't make a guess within 2% again and again
AND be right about it enough to make a difference compared to a rougher calculation.
If you want to say that having an exact number gives you more confidence at the table and helps you
psychologically, then there is some value to that.
I am also an open-minded guy. So I'm going to try calculating a little more and maybe I'll come around. But
it's doubtful. The only way I would know for sure is if I played that way for 50,000 hands and saw a
difference.
The Dude
Well, anyone who knows the origin of my UserName can't be that bad, even if they are an engineer!
(Sorry, I couldn't resist that one)
blackaces13
Ok, I can see that. I must confess though that I'd probably play the hand the same way. But I see that against
good players it would be wrong. On the flop you'd have to think overpair and/or AQ is out I suppose right?
GuyOnTilt
I understand that you feel unconfident in your ability to calculate your odds accurately, but you really need
to start putting a concrete number on it. It should be apparent why from your statement:
I don't find much value in thinking that you have a 9.3% chance of winning compared to thinking that your
hand wins about 5%-15% of the time.
The spread you're giving yourself there is from getting 19:1 and 5.6:1. That's an absolutely ridiculously
huge difference and you're going to be making a lot of horrible river calls if you keep using this vague
notion of how to calculate river calls.
I'm not sure this has ever been debated on these boards, so this idea may be new to most people here, which
is why everybody is saying I'm crazy, but I stand by what I've written and what I believe on this matter. I
REALLY think this is a part of the SS mentality that needs to change.
bernie
i agree, for the most part
one problem is when they dont learn from the bad call. applying what they learned/confirmed about that
opponent and his likely bet pattern. that's not adjusting, that's just playing without really bothering to go
through the trouble to really learn how the opponents play.
134
i dont think making the call is that big of deal. but, repeatedly calling, over and over in these spots can be a
leak.
the main problem i see that leads up to this is the lack of player profiling to which they dont 'know' the
player(s) well enough to fold. too many times we've seen the table text. along with 'no reads on anyone'.
why not? even after a few orbits.
if you dont know, call. but eventually, you have to get a line on a guys play and what he's likely betting. if
it's gone a few orbits, and you dont have a decent starting line on the opponents play, there's a nice flaw in
one's game. which gets covered up by the statements like the one above.
there comes a time when you have to read the opponents AND act on that read. many on here also ignore a
great read and call anyways due to the pot size.
hope this makes sense.
CrazyEyez
I don't find much value in thinking that you have a 9.3% chance of winning compared to thinking that your
hand wins about 5%-15% of the time.
To me that's like saying you don't worry much about whether you're a 1 BB/hr player or a 1.5 BB/hr player.
The fact that you base your calculations on imperfect information is nothing new. That's what reading hands
and reading players is all about. But you make the best read you can, and then act
accordingly/mathematically.
For some given situation, when I started playing poker, I could probably only estimate my chances
accurately to within, say, 20%. Now, for the same situation, maybe I'm correct to within 10%. GoT might be
good to within 5%. That's a lot of extra EV you're grinding out. It seems to me like the only way to keep
getting better at it is to at least try. If I'm satisfied with just "ballparking" it, I'm leaving a lot of money on
the table.
- a rookie's 2 cents.....
el_grande
How do you know that your estimations are within 10% now when they were 20% before? How are you
measuring that?
All you can say is that you believe your guesses are more accurate now. And that determination is
completely done by feel. If you went back and looked at a hand you played you could say "I believed I had
a 10% chance of being good there." Let's say you called that hand and won. How do you know that you
indeed had a 10% chance and hit your 10% shot or you actually had a 20% chance and hit it?
There's only one way to prove that precise calculations help your win rate. Decide on a robotic solid poker
playing method. Play tens of thousands of hands using that method. Take the same method but start making
river decisions based on precise call estimations. Make no other adjustments to your game. Play tens of
thousands of hands that way. Examine the results. Very difficult to do that.
MortalNuts
Hi GoT -Great post, and your point about the EV of these river calls over the long term is especially important.
But ...
I've always assumed that when competent people talk about "not folding the big pots," they're not talking
about 10BB pots or 15BB pots, where I agree you ought to be able to do a pretty straightforward estimate
of where you stand and whether the call is +EV. When I think of a "big pot," where I tend to err on the side
of calling and advise other people (especially new players) to do the same, I'm talking about the 25 or 30BB
ones; here, I think the "tend not to fold" mantra is okay, for several reasons.
135
-- When the pot is say 30BB, you're talking about figuring whether you stand to win the pot 3.3% of the
time. I contend that figuring whether you stand to win a pot 3 times in a hundred, or 2 times, or no times, is
fraught with difficulty even for a good player.
-- I think new players tend to underestimate slightly their chances of having the best hand. They think "how
in the world can he not have me beat on this board?" when their opponent is just thinking "oooh, pretty
board." Obviously this is sort of a separate problem, but in normalish pots it's not that big a deal -- if I think
I'd win a hand 33 times in 100 and really it's 36, oh well; I'm making a small mistake in EV calculation. But
if I'm consistently off by that same 3 times in 100, I will never make the thin call in a 25 BB pot, because
that 3 times is all I've got. I agree that the effects of incorrectly making that fold are sometimes overstated,
however:
-- (The possibly wildly offbase one): Pots that big don't come around that often. A quick, utterly unscientific
glance at my PT database suggests that I'm seeing only a couple 25+ BB pots per 1000 hands. It seems to
me that the same logic that dictates your play before the river in big pots ought to dictate your play at the
river. Specifically, Sklansky et al. (and lots of people here) routinely advocate the idea that when the pot
gets big, you play in such a way as to maximize your chance of winning it -- not necessarily in the way that
would maximize your EV if the same hand were played out many times. If that's the case , why isn't it
correct also to make a "thin" river call if the pot is very large? Even if this is giving up a small amount of
EV, maybe that's acceptable if it maximizes (or in this case, merely fails to eliminate completely) your
chance of winning the pot. Aside from which, EV starts becoming a little less relevant when you're talking
about hands that are massive statistical outliers anyway.
Blah, this is too long. Obviously people should come up with a reasonable estimate of their chances of
winning the pot, and compare that to the pot odds; in most cases that should give a clear call/fold decision.
And there's no clearcut point where that sort of decision becomes less important. But in truly large pots, I
think your uncertainty in nailing down your true odds of winning the pot, coupled with the rarity of such
pots, tends to make calling correct the vast, vast majority of the time. And let's not even talk about the tilt
induced in a new player when he folds the winner in a 30 BB pot.
Just my 2 discounted, no-talent cents.
Monty Cantsin
I'm not sure this has ever been debated on these boards, so this idea may be new to most people here,
which is why everybody is saying I'm crazy, but I stand by what I've written and what I believe on this
matter. I REALLY think this is a part of the SS mentality that needs to change.
First of all, let me just say that this is my absolute favorite kind of thread. I love the day to day grind of
hand analysis and so forth, but when someone takes a swing at a larger theoretical issue and re-evaluates
community-wide habits of thinking and talking about the game - that just rocks. This thread goes alongside
"Why You Guys Aren't Beating these Microlimit Games" and "Stop 'Charging the Flush Draw'" as a recent
classics of this type. Guy, I think your argument here is incredibly well thought out, compelling, and
important.
I totally see the point of people who say they want to "err on the side of calling" in these situations, but of
course the goal to not err at all, but to make the correct play given all the information you have.
I keep thinking that if you want to be conservative in this situation you should be conservative when you are
calculating the chances you are beat, not when you are applying that calculation to make a decision.
Consider the chance that your opponent is bluffing, that your read on him is mistaken, etc, and put that all
that into your estimate - if it's in there then there's no need to add an extra "fudge factor" on top. (mmmmm
fudge)
I think the heart of this issue is psychological, and this is reflected in the term "crying call". Poker hands are
little stories with heros and villains and when you get to the river there's a lot of narrative momentum
carrying you forward, sometimes at a tangent to logic. It's often harder to let go of a hand at the end for
psychological reasons that have nothing to do with good, solid play and Guy's right in calling attention to
this fact.
136
Think of it like this: imagine that you aren't in the hand. Instead imagine that you are a disinterested third
party observing the hand and you just happen to be able to see player B's cards. You are now offered a sidebet about which hand is better. You win 30BB if Player B's hand is best, you lose 1BB if it isn't. Given
everything you know about both players and how the action went, do you take the bet? You shouldn't if you
aren't getting the best of it. It's as simple as that.
gonores
If you put percentages next to each one of those hands you list, then you'll know FOR SURE whether you
like my river fold or not.
Haha
you wish I'd put that kind of effort into this post. Actually, I would have, but as soon as I started to, I started
questioning just how likely these hands would be. I could Bayes it out for you, but even though I brashly put
him on QJs as his most likely, giving him my actual "feel percentage" is something I couldn't do without
sitting at the table.
I made a post which touched on your "crying call" syndrome about a month ago. A lot of players just think
"there's no way I can tell if I am 90% beaten or 94% beaten...it's only 4 percentage points" where if they
thought more like "Am I winning 1 in 10 times here? What about 1 in 17?" Is it just a wording issue? I don't
know, but I bet if players started thinking more along the lines of "1 in 10," they would be less apt to make
stupid crying calls.
StellarWind
GoT,
Thanks for a very stimulating discussion.
Would you modify your advice at all for use in the micro world?
I find that whenever I make up an airtight list of, say, five possible hands for my opponent, he has a
disturbing tendency to produce a sixth hand. Often this sixth hand is one that would not have occurred to me
even if I had produced a Top 20 list.
My conclusion is that in many situations I simply need to accept that even though everything seems
clearcut, the probability that I have no idea what is going on exceeds the 3-5% chance that I need to justify
a call in a typical large pot.
Your thoughts appreciated.
CrackerZack
You mean, it's wrong if the other player had a worse hand? As in, it's wrong if the results of that particular
hand were unfavorable? That's not the way to analyze poker, CZ; you know that. In that particular hand,
how much did my opponent lose by folding? Was it the whole pot? Of course not. It's probabilities,
percentages.
I agree its probabilities and percentages. Actually, Tommy was making this argument recently. It was in the
thread I reference in my long thread about find games to fit your style. He mentioned that if you were 95%
sure and the pot was giving you 15-1, then you decision to fold was always correct. I agree with this and
believe it is similar to what you're saying. He then went on to debate the difference between the decision
being wrong, and the input that led to that decision being wrong. While its nice and ideal and very scientific
to separate these two, in this type of real-time application, its not practical. Even if I could say with 100%
confidence that I was sure I was 95% sure I was beaten, but was only about 75% confident in the input
parameters that led me to my 95% confidence in beat beaten, that would give a large enough statistical error
that I should probably be calling down getting 12-1 if not a little worse. Notice that only changes my 95%
to about 92%. Can any of us be that sure?
137
I don't mean to seem results oriented, and I'm not in my thinking of things, but what I was trying to say is
that when I pot is very large, as 18BBs is, and you have any reasonable shot at winning it, you should
generally call. I only brought up the JJ vs AA hand because that pot was probably 40 BBs and I thought the
move was spectacular to move him off the hand.
I've made folds like this in the past, a lot more before I started posting here. With your reads of the players
and the play of the hand, I'd agree that you're beat probably 98% of the time here. But it was shown that
your read on the C/O wasn't completely accurate. While calling 2 cold with QJs is definitely a mistake, at
least he's in a realm of starting hands that most people will play. Even with the adjusted read, you're fold is
probably correct (or costing you pennies) because his post flop play is rather ABC, but the input parameters
were off, and how far that skews the final decision is sometimes hard to tell.
Honestly, in the end, I'm just saying, better safe than sorry. Nothing seems to tilt a player more than folding
the best hand in a big pot. For me, that's when I grab the waitress and order a drink.
GuyOnTilt
A lot of players just think "there's no way I can tell if I am 90% beaten or 94% beaten...it's only 4
percentage points" where if they thought more like "Am I winning 1 in 10 times here? What about 1 in
17?" Is it just a wording issue? I don't know, but I bet if players started thinking more along the lines of "1
in 10," they would be less apt to make stupid crying calls.
I agree. That's why earlier in this thread when I recommended coming up with a "concrete number," I gave
examples in the form of 1 out of n times I'm good here. That's a lot easier to do than percentages for most
people's minds, and it'll end up being a lot more specific, since the difference between 90% and 95% is 9:1
and 19:1. But regardless, I think the thing I want to get across with this thread is that players need to start
coming up with a number. Sure, it may not be perfectly accurate, but you simply must give yourself some
gauge to know whether or not to make these calls. Otherwise you're just haphazardly tossing chips in and
hoping for the best. Not exactly the 2+2 way to play poker, but it's accepted here for river play nonetheless.
Not sure why...
GuyOnTilt
I totally see the point of people who say they want to "err on the side of calling" in these situations, but of
course the goal to not err at all, but to make the correct play given all the information you have.
Exactly.
I keep thinking that if you want to be conservative in this situation you should be conservative when you
are calculating the chances you are beat, not when you are applying that calculation to make a decision.
Very well-put and right on. The number you come up with is up to you. Take everything into consideration
and come up with one. If you feel your skills aren't good enough to be very precise, then give yourself some
leeway and add on a little bit to account for, as you say, a "fudge factor." But once you come up with that
number, you decision should be very clear and very obvious when you compare it with the size of the pot.
Think of it like this: imagine that you aren't in the hand. Instead imagine that you are a disinterested third
party observing the hand and you just happen to be able to see player B's cards. You are now offered a
side-bet about which hand is better. You win 30BB if Player B's hand is best, you lose 1BB if it isn't. Given
everything you know about both players and how the action went, do you take the bet? You shouldn't if you
aren't getting the best of it. It's as simple as that.
Wow. That's perfect. That's precisely how you should look at it.
Not much more I can say that you haven't. Great post, Monty.
Tommy Angelo
138
GuyOnTilt invited me to play along in this thread so Hi!
There's two things here.
"He mentioned that if you were 95% sure and the pot was giving you 15-1, then you decision to fold was
always correct."
That's one. It's an understatement that when taken literally must be true.
The second thing is this, about potential certainty:
"Even if I could say with 100% confidence that I was sure I was 95% sure I was beaten, but was only about
75% confident in the input parameters that led me to my 95% confidence in beat beaten, that would give a
large enough statistical error that I should probably be calling down getting 12-1 if not a little worse.
Notice that only changes my 95% to about 92%. Can any of us be that sure?"
Very nice. What you've done is make a strong case for the answer to your final question being "no." If I
may paraphrase your words, while going one little bit further ...
If the input parameters, by their nature, are never knowable to the required certainty, then calling [in these
situations] is always right, for all players at all times.
This statement is also undeniably correct. I believe it to be false, and that the premise in question is the
knowableness of certainty. My answer to "Can any of us be that sure?" --> as it applies to B&M poker <-- is
an emphatic "yes."
When I (and many players I've seen) fold on the river for one bet when the pot is laying 20-1, it's not
because we think that the chances of being beat are 21-1 or greater, it is because we think the chances of
being beat are effectively 100%. It's not splitting hairs between 92% and 97% or whatever. It's the
difference between, in theory, zero certainty (if your knowableness-premise is correct) and infinite certainty
(if mine is).
(That last sentence was a reach, an overstated attempt to root out the core.)
Tommy
daryn
GuyOnTilt could have folded the best hand here and still made a +EV play.
are you saying that folding the best hand on the river can be a +EV play? i think you meant to word this
differently, no?
scrub
No, he didn't.
Poker is about making decisions in an environment of incomplete information. This river decision is just an
incredibly simplified version of the decisions you make every time it's your action. You have a collection of
data about the hand, and you need to make a binary decision--call or fold.
Your goal is to formulate a decision rule based on your information about the players, the action, and the
size of the pot that is as close to Bayes Error Rate (the error rate that you would have if you had the
ACTUAL probability distributions for each players holdings and could just use a calculator) as possible.
Making the "right" decision, based on the information available to you, will necessarily result in
occasionally mucking the winning hand, unless the combination of your opposition's predictability and the
size of the pot means that you never fold.
139
GuyOnTilt's accusation is that the denizens of the Small Stakes forum have communally abandoned any
attempt to make a formal calculation about whether a river fold in this and similar situations might be
appropriate. It's a good question, particularly if players are not using every "crying call" they make against a
specific player as another piece of data to justify a fold in a later pot.
The parameter that I'm surprised no one has mentioned yet, although I understand that it's not necessarily
important to an online 3/6 game with a constantly changing lineup, is the possibility that a player who is
constantly looking to save bets on the river in big pots will be bet into on the river more often than other
players. Against observant opposition, this "meta-game" consideration should be addressed. My guess is
that occasionally making a randomized "bad call" is a better solution than skewing the pot-odds for each
calcultion.
CZ's point, that for some players the -EV associated with emotions they experience when they make a poor
laydown may outweigh the money saved through the good folds, is also valid. If you know that 1/10 times
you fold you're going to have to (1) end your session or (2) go on tilt and lose 8 BB through poor play, then
you probably shouldn't try to save 1/3 of a bet. I'm not saying that having such an emotional reaction isn't a
leak--I'm just saying that making the bad call and staying at the table and playing solid may often be the
least expensive way to deal with the leak.
daryn
nevermind, i guess i was trying to say something that nobody understood.
scrub
Or just being inane...
MK would be proud : QQ on the Button
140
GuyOnTilt
I thought about chiming in my disagreement in MK's most recent thread, but I decided on posting a hand
instead.
I was in a home game last night playing 1/2 limit hold'em. I'm on the Button with Q Q . UTG limps
(unknown), MP (horrible player; his limp means any ace, most face, or most suited). I raise, BB (same as
MP) calls, and the two limpers call. 4 to the flop for 8.5 SB's.
Flop comes: T
8
6
BB bets out, UTG raises, MP cold-calls. I muck.
Mucking an overpair on the flop for 1 BB in a big pot?! Yes. There are times to raise and times to fold.
MK's post, I believe, is misplaced. I think it will do more harm than good here. I'm not saying I disagree
with it, just that I think that he's speaking to the wrong group of people. Do not play loosely on later streets
just because the pot is big. Play smart poker.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think MK's encouragement for micro-limit players to not fold so much
postflop will be taken at face value, which will be bad. A player without a good knowledge of pot odds and
the ability to mentaly calculate them along with implied odds quickly, AND advanced postflop skills who
reads MK's post and the ensuing throng of applauding it received will see only that he should play more
loosely and more aggressively postflop in big pots. This is simply not true. It is true in some instances, yes,
but overall this approach will not maximize your EV. Players like MK and Clark are always looking for
reasons to play preflop. I, on the other hand, am always looking for reasons to fold preflop. This difference
in mentality carries over, albeit to a lesser extent, postflop. Neither of our approaches are the "wrong" way
to play, but they BOTH would be if taken to the extreme. I encourage you guys to not take MK's post for
face value; don't be playing overly aggressive or loose postflop in big pots just because you were told to.
Pot odds are the key, not pot size.
Maximize your EV, not your pots dragged. They're not the one and the same.
Oh yeah, and comments on the hand would be appreciated.
GoT
TBone
IMO, there are too many hands out there worth raising that flop that are still drawing hands. I think this is a
bad muck.
BB could have flopped top pair or a high flush draw, raiser could have had Ad, J9, 97, AT, etc. I don't think
I let this one go this early. You say BB is a horrible player and UTG is unknown.
You could still very likely be ahead, and THIS is the point that MK is trying to make. Folding to aggression
when you have a decent hand is a reason that so many people struggle to win at the lower limit games when
starting out. There are so many bad players out there at those limits that sometimes you have to call it down.
I had a 1/2 hand last night where I had KK on the button or cutoff. EP raisor, I re-raise pre-flop, he caps. I
bet out on a raggedy flop, he raises, I re-raise, he caps. I'm now thinking I could be behind here to AA
possibly, but no way am I going to give it up. Turn comes J, and I decide to represent pocket Jacks by
check-raising him. He re-raises, I call, check call the river, and he flips over QQ.
I really expected the pot to get pushed his way, but there are too many bad players that don't play good
poker out there that laying down these hands is going to cost you more over the long run than it will "save"
you when you are indeed beat.
Ed Miller
141
I think folding in this situation is reasonable. The straight-flush board is just about the worst one possible
for a big pair if you don't have one of the suit. That there is so much action on this one bodes very poorly
for your hand. Even if you have the best hand now, you have to dodge so many cards on the turn and river
that I don't think you can continue profitably.
I would like to point out that this is very much the EXCEPTION, and not the rule. Of course I fold
overpairs OCCASIONALLY on the flop, but it is a once per 200 hours thing, not a once per twenty hands
thing.
Furthermore, if calling on the flop in this situation is an error, it is not a big one. You will lose only a little
money by making this call. So this situation represents a rare situation where misapplying my advice will
lose you a little money.
Contrast this to post after post of "Did I make a good fold?" where people folded top pair or an overpair in
a big pot for one bet. The opportunity to make that error comes up often, and it is an EXPENSIVE one to
make... in fact, it is the most expensive error possible.
I fully stand by my advice to stop folding so damn much in big pots.
Dylan Wade
What I think is brilliant about MK's post is that it might loosen up some players who don't fully understand
it. It's not misinformation, but it's still information that must be processed carefully. In the wrong hands it
could turn one into the incredible Mr limpet.
Not as good as Phil Hellmuth's book, though.
Ed Miller
You have to have a brain to play winning poker. If you are inexperienced, you are going to lose no matter
what advice you get. Poker is a very complex game that cannot be adequately explained even in a thousand
page book. There is no way that any one page post can turn you from a loser into a winner if you
fundamentally don't understand the game.
To play winning poker requires literally thousands of hours of study and experience. If you apply any
strategy without regard to the many exceptions and nuances, you are doomed. It doesn't matter whether your
strategy is fundamentally weak-tight or loose-aggressive... you can't win without understanding the game
fully.
My post was a response to the chronic weak-tight disease that infests the micro forum. I was saying, "Guys,
this way of thinking is just not right." I was hoping that some of you would read my post and start thinking
about the game along different lines. Playing like a loose moron won't get the money either. But most of you
need to open up your games some.
Not as good as Phil Hellmuth's book, though.
Playing as Phil recommends will cause you to go broke, no matter how much you think about it.
daveymck
I nearly replied in another post along the lines of what you have just said, I was going to say not to just
change your play just cos you said but to think and understand what you were saying and applying it to their
game.
There is lots of advice out there whether on these forums in the many books out there much of it is
conflicting people have to learn to think and absorb to become better players not just jump from playing one
way to another just cos of advice they see, read and absorb the advice and intergrate it into your game.
I do feel the most important part of becoming a successful player and move up the limits is to think, not just
about your own play but on how the table is playing, how the individual players are playing etc etc.
142
I think firstly you have to identify your goals and where you want to get too, if you want to pay well and
make money at these micro levels playing 3-4 multiple tables or if you are looking to move up to higher
stakes playing single tables, if the former I feel that you can just play the cards you have and follow a set
formula but if the latter you need to play the table and think and develop so that your game improves
enough to allow you to be a sucessful player at the higher limits.
GuyOnTilt
BB could have flopped top pair or a high flush draw, raiser could have had Ad, J9, 97, AT, etc. I don't
think I let this one go this early. You say BB is a horrible player and UTG is unknown.
I know 97 was an overlook, so I'm not going to give it mention. But I think a fold on the flop is in order in
this hand for sure. First, there is a good chance I'm behind to a better hand. I agree with you that there are
many other hands that my opponents could be betting and raising with that I still have the lead over, but
there still is a good chance with this board that I'm behind. Second, if I am behind, I have only the slimmest
chance of improving. Third, if I am in the lead at the moment, there are many cards that I have to dodge on
the turn and river that will keep me in the lead against 3 opponents who are willing to put in 2 bets on this
flop. Fourth, many of the cards that I must dodge are not obvious, therefore reverse implied odds are against
me in this hand.
After considering all those factors, do you still think my fold on the flop was incorrect? If not, do you think
I should've cold-called or 3-bet? How do I proceed if the BB reraises?
You could still very likely be ahead, and THIS is the point that MK is trying to make. Folding to aggression
when you have a decent hand is a reason that so many people struggle to win...
The situation I presented in this hand is definitely NOT what MK was talking about. That you presume that
it was shows that the advice in his post will be misapplied by you, just as I suspect it will be by many others
in this forum. That is why I wanted to speak up in response to that thread.
There are occasions when MK's advice should be put to use in big pots. There are other occassions when it
definitely should not be. Learning to recognize the differences is what people should really be learning, not
just "be aggressive and looser in big pots." Hopefully my thought process above concerning my QQ hand
shows some of the things that need to be considered when in big pots facing aggression.
GoT
Very Difficult Hand For Me : QQ in the SB
GuyOnTilt
Playing Party 5/10. MP has decent player with good preflop standards. CO just sat down, so I have no read.
The Button is super-aggressive pre- and post-flop usually. He will bet when checked to regardless.
143
I'm in the SB with Q Q . There's a poster in the CO. Folded to MP who open-raises, CO calls one bet,
Button cold-calls. I 3-bet, BB folds, the rest call. 4 to the flop for 12 SB's.
Flop comes: 8
7
4
I check intending to check-raise. MP checks, CO bets, Button calls. I raise, MP cold-calls, CO 3-bets.
Button folds, I call, MP calls. 3 to the turn for 11 BB's.
Turn comes: 7
[8
7
4
]
I bet out, MP folds, CO raises, I call. Headsup for 15 BB's.
River comes: 9
[7
8
7
4
]
I check-call.
I hated this hand from start to finish and I need help trying to figure where, how, and why I went wrong.
Any and all comments are appreciated.
Robk
Even though it looks like you're beat the pot is large and you need to protect your hand in case it's good. I
think you should cap the flop (or even checkraise the turn) to pressure MP as he almost certainly has 3-6
outs against you.
BreakEvenPlayer
I don't like the check-raise on the flop... new guy in CO could have such a variety of hands. I understand
you wanted to eliminate players on turn but like you said this hand is just too scary all around.
Dylan Wade
Flop thoughts: I don't think you have a duty to check-raise here. There are no draws which you need to
eliminate (Let's rule out 9T based on pre-flop play), but I think you gain a lot more information by lead
betting. By betting you'd run into a raise, which you would 3-bet... if he caps, you can be pretty sure your
Q's are going to need improvement (it's very unlikely he limped overpair 99-JJ)and you can start counting
your odds and proceed accordingly.
I think this approach on the flop saves you the pain of being forced to bet and call on the turn and river.
From the quality of your posts I feel you're a better player than I am, so understand that my comments are
not authoritative.
GuyOnTilt
At this point I agree that I should've bet the flop. However, I just thought I'd address one issue that seems to
come up a lot on this forum. I consistently see comments like this:
I don't think you have a duty to check-raise here. There are no draws which you need to eliminate (Let's
rule out 9T based on pre-flop play),
Posters will make statements like this about betting/raising to knock out or eliminate legitimate draws. Let
me make it clear that open-ended straight draws and flush draws are not going to be pushed out of a pot on
the flop. Your thinking shouldn't be getting draws like these to fold, but rather getting hands like a gutshot
and an overcard, or two overcards, or middle pair and an overcard to fold. At most online tables you'll need
to make them call more than one bet on the flop in order to accomplish this. You won't be able to keep big
draws from seeing the river. You may, however, be able at times to push out 4 and 5 out draws on the flop,
and if you're able to accomplish that on a frequent basis you will increase your probability of winning those
144
pots. Consequently, flop plays intended to push out mediocre draws will net you far more EV than plays
intended to knock out flush draws or "make them pay."
This post isn't necessarily directed at you, Dylan, but I see posters making this mistake in their thinking
quite often.
Dylan Wade
Ah, I see. I never did understand why people check-raise the flop, (and consequently have rarely done it)
since it seems a flush or openender wouldn't have much trouble cold calling raises.
But now I wonder why you've decided to bet the flop while AK seems to be your only threat ? (obviously
the threat of a set presents itself later, but only after you've decided to check or bet the flop)
ElSapo
Hey Guy... I don't really have a problem with how you played the hand. I think you can make arguments for
checkraising the flop and for betting out. Most likely I'd bet out, but I think either one works.
I have to think you either beat 9Ts or TT, or lost to a boat - 88 or 87. But I suppose there are a lot of other
hands that are possible.
If the CO is playing a draw this agressively, take note. But after the amount of strength shown, I think
check-calling is fine on the river. If you check-raise the turn and get three-bet, do you call?
I like how you played it, with the flop decision being close - but I'd bet out and three-bet when raised.
gonores
I don't like the flop checkraise. I think you need to get people out of this pot with your holding, and your
best chance is to bet out, hoping your solid MP friend will raise, realizing its the best way to clean up his
overcard outs and get a feel for where you stand. The check-raise does nothing but tie people to the pot.
Given the way it played out on the flop, I think you have to play it the way you did on the turn and river.
You don't want to give a free card to CO, so I like the bet on the turn. Once he raises, I've seen enough
aggression out of an unknown to call down, but my default read on any new player at 5/10 is weak-tight
until proven otherwise.
rtucker5
I think you need to get people out of this pot with your holding
You want to get people out of a pot when you have an overpair? Why? You want to get them trapped in for
multiple bets when drawing slim.
Mike Gallo
Guy,
Bet the flop and hope the overaggressive player will raise you. After you check raised, why didnt you
reraise (cap)?
I would reraise the turn and most likely have capped.
I would have bet the river and called a raise.
I think you had the best hand.
ElSapo
Bet the flop and hope the overaggressive player will raise you. After you check raised, why didnt you
reraise (cap)?
This seems really, really agressive to me without a read on the player.
145
I would reraise the turn and most likely have capped.
Especially this part. I don't see capping the turn with an overpair against an unknown...
Robk
You want to get people out of a pot when you have an overpair? Why? You want to get them trapped in for
multiple bets when drawing slim.
You're missing the key point: you want people out of the pot when they're getting the right price to call. It
has nothing to do with how slim they're drawing. If someone only has one out, but the pot has 100 bets in it
you do better when he folds than when he calls even though he is drawing ridiculously slim. In this hand the
pot is so large that anyone with 3 outs is getting the right price to call one bet on the flop. Since it is quite
easy to have 3 outs against a pair of queens (especially on this flop), you want players out.
Robk
I would reraise the turn and most likely have capped
This is way too aggressive. This is basic handreading. When you 3bet from the SB and then checkraise the
flop, you've announced an overpair. When you get raised on the turn you're beat the vast majority of the
time.
Mike Gallo
This is way too aggressive. This is basic handreading. When you 3bet from the SB and then checkraise the
flop, you've announced an overpair. When you get raised on the turn you're beat the vast majority of the
time.
I think I might need reading comprehension lessons. I confused the cutoff and the button. I thought the
villian played overaggressive. However against a "normal" opponent, I suppose I did give too much action.
squiffy
The CO's preflop calls scare me most. Since he limped in and then called the three bet, possibly a
medium/small pair 88, 77, 44. Less likely 78s, which would suck.
Then he comes to life on the turn and reraises your raise, despite your preflop 3-bet. He probably doesn't
have Aces or Kings, or probably would have capped. And is not afraid of trips or a big pair, since he
reraises.
I think you lost to 88s full or four 77s
mauisupaman
Guy,
Haven't read the other posts yet, but I liked the PF 3 bet.
On the flop why didn't you cap it? Clarkmeister may correct me on this, but I learned from his style of play
that I would've capped the flop, and then bet the turn to see where I stood.
If CO raised again on the turn then I may consider folding or at least slow down at that point. I hope he
didn't get 65 when he posted.
GuyOnTilt
I would have waited and went for a check-raise on the turn after CO showed strength on flop.
I don't think this is a very good way to play the hand. Just because I have an overpair doesn't mean my hand
is best here. My opponent watched me 3-bet from the blinds preflop, then watched me check-raise him on
the flop. Yet he still 3-bet me. At this point in the hand I think my best choice is to either, 1) cap the flop
and bet the turn, or 2) call the flop and bet the turn. I don't think check-raising the turn is a good choice.
146
Given how raggedy the board is, what hand do you think the CO has that would show this much counteraggression that merits a check-raise on the turn?
GuyOnTilt
I agree that I want the MP player out of the hand, since he's surely drawing live to 3-6 outs against me. But
since he already called 2 cold on the flop, is capping the best way to try to drive him out? What I don't want
to do is give him excuse to see the river, so I opted to try to keep the pot at a non-monster size and face him
with a bet and possible raise on the turn. At the time I thought this was a better way to get him out of the
pot, but the equity I gain from him by capping the flop may make it the better of the two.
GuyOnTilt
If you check-raise the turn and get three-bet, do you call?
I really don't think I'd check-raise the turn in this situation. I don't see how it accomplishes much of
anything, except ensure that the MP gets out. If I did, then I would probably have to fold to a 3-bet by the
CO, since I'd most likely be against a boat or a straight.
Munga30
Preflop is solid.
On the flop, I think you're in a bad spot against a lot of hands that CO will "limp" with preflop and bet/3-bet
on that flop (88/77/44/65/87). Sure, he could be raising for a free card.
But a free card here is not a "catastrophe" here. Another limping hand (76) pulls ahead. He's not folding any
of his possible remaining draws for one bet, and you don't need him to raise to push anyone out. A free card
would only cost you a fraction of a bet and if 98/66/55/54 take it, so be it. MP will correctly call with any
draw he's got and you don't want him to fold JJ/TT/AQ-AT for one bet fearing he'll be raised. I guess if he
folds AK that's a good thing, but better to let him peel one more off with more dominated hands.
From the comfort of my armchair, it's hard to imagine you're ahead once CO raises the turn, and moreso
when the 9 comes on the river. Perhaps here would have been a good time to fold. I probably call down,
like you, but suspect I do it too much, generally.
GuyOnTilt
The CO had 8 7 for the boat and dragged it. I thought he played his hand well on all streets,
considering he was on an installment plan preflop.
Interestingly, MP said he folded TT in the chat box. I thought about how I would've played TT in his spot,
and I'm not really sure. I would've bet the flop, got raised, got check-3-bet, at which point I'd have called.
Then it probably would've been capped and I would've folded to the turn bet. Or it just would've been
called, and I would've called a turn bet and folded to the turn raise. It would've been a tough hand to play
either way.
Robk
Here are some possible lines for you to play after you get 3 bet on the flop:
1. Cap the flop and bet the turn. Cost when you are behind
(assuming you get raised on the turn) = 3BB.
2. Call the 3bet on the flop and CR the turn. Cost when you are behind (assuming you get 3 bet on the turn)
= 3.5 BB
3. Stop and go (ie what you did). Cost (assuming you are raised on the turn) = 2.5 BB.
What I don't want to do is give him excuse to see the river, so I opted to try to keep the pot at a nonmonster size and face him with a bet and possible raise on the turn.
147
You're saying that 3 is somehow more imposing to him than 1? I don't get it. In both cases he faces a bet
and the threat of a raise on the turn, but when you cap the flop he also faces two bets there (when he would
be right to call one with something like AJs). While a CR on the turn is the most clear cut way to pressure
him I'm not sure if it's worth it (since it's the most "expensive" and your opponent might take a free card.)
GuyOnTilt
I was actually referring to the possibility that he would call my cap on the flop since he already called 2
cold on that street, and then the pot would be so large that he'd be willing to call a single bet on the turn.
This probably isn't the best way to go though...I was half-concerned with getting him out, and halfconcerned with the chance that I was behind and drawing thin, so I made what was probably a mistake on
the flop by not capping.
AKs River Decision
The Dude
Party Poker 15-30, 9 Handed.
SB in this hand is a 25/9'er with 1.8/1.5/1.5 numbers postflop.
Preflop:
MP limps, Hero raises in the CO w/ A
calls.
Flop: (13 SBs) K
T
8
K
(4 Players)
. Button calls cold, SB 3-bets, MP calls, Hero caps, everyone
148
Checked to Hero who bets, button calls, SB raises, MP folds. Hero 3-bets, button calls, SB calls.
Turn: (11 BBs) 8 (3 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets, button folds, SB calls.
River: (13 BBs) A
SB bets out...
(2 Players)
Evan
This looks like a clear call to me. I don't see a whole lot of room for debate.
MCS
I'd call because I'm not good enough to be 99.6% sure I'm beat. I don't raise for obvious reasons.
I'm not sure I'm totally happy with the flop action. I don't know the SB, but in my games (i.e., the smaller
ones usually discussed in this forum ), 3-bets from the small blind are often AA, KK, or AK. Then you
get checkraised on that flop after you capped preflop. Are you sure the 3-bet is right?
Shillx
Curse and call. The other 2 options look much worse then calling here. Even if you win 10% you need to
call.
Brad
Did SB has AK as well?
The Dude
I'm not sure I'm totally happy with the flop action. ... Are you sure the 3-bet is right?
3-betting is VASTLY superior to just calling down, especially in the 15-30 that plays much more aggro than
the games you refer to.
MCS
Why is that? Because calling surrenders control of the hand to the SB, or what? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just
trying to figure out why. What hands could the SB have that make this a good play? I guess plenty in an
aggressive midlimit game.
The Dude
Hi MCS,
I'm going to resist the temptation to discuss that here, because I don't want to distract the discussion from
the river. (PM me if you really want to hear my thoughts.)
chesspain
Why is 3-betting the preferred play? Unless your opponent is a retard, it should be obvious to both of you
that neither of you has a heart, unless he went WAY overboard w/QQ or AQo. Consequently, I think you're
probably up against AA/KK/AK. And since I can't see your opponent folding any of these hands here (or
will he?), then what's the point of the raise?
Evan
[This is a general response to everyone with doubts about 3 betting the flop]
In aggressive games you are going to get check-raised on this flop by worse hands all the time. You will
have the best hand more than enough to make 3 betting the right play. I've never played 15/30 but in 10/20
6m a preflop cap represents a much wider range of hands than AA/KK/AK. You'll see things like
149
AQ/TT/even worse capping pretty regularly. You need to learn to exploit this when you do have a monster
hand.
GuyOnTilt
Hey guys,
Still haven't heard anybody put the SB on a range of hands.
GuyOnTilt
I've never played 15/30 but in 10/20 6m a preflop cap represents a much wider range of hands than
AA/KK/AK.
This is true in the 15 game when the pot is opened from MP or later. Of course, occasionally there are
players who are just maniacal for the sake of being maniacal, but whatev. It should be noted that the SB did
not cap in this hand though, only 3-bet.
Chris Daddy Cool
i call this down
GuyOnTilt
i call this down
Why?
slydeni
Nice hand- curious as to result.
My conjecture:
Smells like about a coinflip that he has a heart. If he does it is prolly the A, Q, or J of hearts.
The guys does slow down a bit as the hand develops (according to your numbers). Here are the hands I put
hime on:
AK with one heart or no heart is quite likely.
QQ with one or no hearts is also likely.
I also have an itch that he may have flopped a set of 10's.
JJ is also a possibility.
AA,KK is possible but less likey(obvioulsly).
Final answer::>> prolly AK, QQ, or set of 10's is what we are up against and good chance of one heart.
A CALL is a definite. If we lose...we lose.
I'd love to know the VPIP on this guy prior to these decisions...it would tip scales on putting him on a hand.
Johnny Boom Boom
Why?
Because there are 14 BBs in the pot and you're closing the action.
GuyOnTilt
Because there are 14 BBs in the pot and you're closing the action.
Since nobody seems to care to, I'll put SB on a range of hands:
A worse hand that wouldn't call a raise : ~10%
150
A worse hand that wouldn't fold to a raise : ~0%
A better hand that wouldn't call a raise :~0%
A better hand that wouldn't fold to a raise : ~50%
A chopping hand that wouldn't call a raise : ~30%
A chopping hand that wouldn't fold to a raise : ~10%
Given the above numbers, why should I call?
PS. I played this hand, not The Dude.
Johnny Boom Boom
I think I'd need to see some specific hands/ranges from where those numbers came from, as that's a little
much to process.
However, I think the second figure being 0% is off. As you admitted there are some nuts on party 15, and
unless you have a read to the contrary, I think it's possible he would bet, call a rase to a look you up, and
lose. Not likely, but >0, no?
GuyOnTilt
Okay,
Hands that beat me:
My opponent does not have a full house unless it's AA, as the board paired on the turn and there was no
action. AA still isn't all that likely, as opponents with his numbers will usually go one more bet on the flop
and bet the turn. It is still a possibility though. KQo for the nut flush won't be 3-bet from the SB very often
here by a guy with his numbers. So that's possible, but not likely. QQ or JJ with a heart is a possibility, but
his c/r on the flop brings that possibility down. They're both still likely hands though. The flop was actually
KJ8 though, which makes only helps me since he can no longer have JJ, and TT won't be c/r'ing that flop.
Chance of AQo with a heart.
Hands that I beat:
A bluff with something like KQo without the heart or QQ with a heart. Outside shot of something like AQ
without a heart.
Hands that I chop with:
Obviously AK, which I actually think is the most likely of any specific hand he will have here.
So yes, the two categories I put as ~0% are both above 0%, but I feel are below 5%, and I just wanted to
give a general feel for my opponent's range rather than be super exact. To be honest, I think the numbers I
gave give too much weight to him having a hand that beats me and not enough to a hand that chops with me.
Those numbers err very much of the bleak side for me. More accurate numbers would be:
Hands I beat that fold to a raise : 10%
Hands I beat that call a raise : ~0%
Hands that beat me that fold to a raise : ~0%
Hands that beat me that don't fold to a raise : 30%
Hands that chop that fold to a raise : 50%
Hands that chop that call a raise : 10%
GuyOnTilt
Just to be clear, the flop was K
Turn: 8
J
8
151
River A
GoT
arkady
why even bother creating permutations of SB's holdings when you are holding top 2 pair in a 15 BB pot.
GuyOnTilt
why even bother creating permutations of SB's holdings when you are holding top 2 pair in a 15 BB pot.
C'mon guys. Are you serious? If this is seriously the kind of crap I get when I take the effort to try and help
out around here, I should just forget about it. Maybe the reason I do it is because the 2+2 dogma isn't
always right. If nobody cares to discuss using actual facts and numbers and would rather just make
statements like the above, I'll quit wasting my time and yours. Just let me know.
GuyOnTilt
Okay, I decided to try and find the point where calling is better than raising. Here's an extremely unrealistic
handset, tipped way in my opponents favor:
I'm ahead and he won't call a raise : 0%
I'm ahead and he will call a raise : 0%
I'm behind and he won't call a raise : 0%
I'm behind and he will call/reraise a raise : 80%
I'm chopping and he won't call a raise : 15%
I'm chopping and he will call a raise : 5%
EV of folding : +0.00 BB's
EV of calling : +0.70 BB's
EV of raising : +0.85 BB's
This is obviously weighted hugely in his advantage, beyond the point of reasonability for this hand. He
never has a hand that beats mine, he has AA or KQo with the heart or QQ with the heart 80% of the time,
calls my raise with AK 25% of the time he has it and bets it (which indicates he's ready to fold it), yet
raising is still the preferred play.
The Dude
why even bother creating permutations of SB's holdings when you are holding top 2 pair in a 15 BB pot.
This is exactly the type of thinking that will prevent players from ever moving up into higher games.
Johnny Boom Boom
I thought you were pushing for a fold. I like a raise.
Rudbaeck
This is very good. Now applying this without me managing to misapply it will be harder, but atleast you got
me convinced that raising is the right play in this hand.
Tosh
Your opponent must be putting you on AK/AA/KK by the river, no? He's not an aggressive player
according to those stats, and I'm not sure he'd expect you to bin AK so does he really bet and fold AK 15%
of the time here? I feel he has a bluff with KQ or something or a very big hand.
GuyOnTilt
I thought you were pushing for a fold. I like a raise.
152
I was just pointing out that everybody thinks this is a calling situation just because they have a good two
pair in a large pot. People have gotten lazy with just making plays based on what "feels" right or rules of
thumb they've been taught from these boards. These type of situations come up pretty frequently. Not this
exact four flush one, but hands where the rule of thumb is bucked and a play that may "feel" wrong is actual
preferred. Think of your winrate, or the winrates of the higher-tier SS'ers and MHS posters, playing
relatively ABC 2+2 poker. It can get better than that, but skepticism is necessary.
The Dude
If this is seriously the kind of crap I get when I take the effort to try and help out around here, I should just
forget about it.
Calm down, you're being very un-Dude. Nothing is fu**ed, they're a bunch of fu**ing amateurs.
Johnny Boom Boom
I think this is a great point, I try not to fall into ruts, and posts like yours help me stay sharp.
bernie
This is one of those hands that bothers me, where I'd probably puss and call instead of raising.
I don't know what the stats mean, so Ill wing it a bit.
He doesn't likely have AA or KK. You'd have heard more from him on ealier streets with a likely cap on the
flop with AA. If he'd go into a shell fearing Hero has KK, he could have TT. He has to be putting hero on
something.
Could he be smoothcalling the turn with a FH?
I think a raise and fold to a 3 bet. Hero has represented a huge hand all the way through. I think any 3 bet
has 2 pair beat.
Now if I can just do it when it comes up.
Interesting hand.
The Dude
I think any 3 bet has 2 pair beat.
Agreed.
bicyclekick
I don't like the 3 bet all that much on the flop. I 3 bet less and less when the board is so draw heavy. A lot of
times it gives me more opportunities to pop the turn if a safe card comes. You have position, the turn isn't
getting checked through either.
As for the river I play bad so I just call and cry about it.
The Dude
Are you saying that after reading through this post, you still think calling is correct, or are you just saying
that that's what you would have done at the time?
sthief09
What are we putting SB on? he's basically a TAG but plays too many hands. his numbers look pretty solid
other than limping a bit too much. When he 3-bets, he's got AA-TT, AK, or AQ. he obviously can't have the
A or the K . from a strictly, "what beats you" perspective, AA, KK, TT have you beat, AK is chopping,
153
and AQ or QQ are good if they have the Q . starting witht he flop, I don't think his check-raise really
narrows his hand too much. I'd say KK, QQ, JJ have to be discounted though, because of the presence of the
A. since we now know the flop had the A on it, AQ is a possibility.
now on the turn, he checks and calls. that would be an odd place to slowplay since he knows he's going to
get called if he check-raises, so I think AA and TT are pretty much out of the picture. So we're looking at
AQ, AK, and a discounted KK, QQ, JJ.
the river is tough. I tend to think that the nut flush would bet, something weak would bet, but something in
between, like AK or AQ would check and call, fearing a raise. people like to get to showdown cheaply
when they have a mediocre hand, so you'll rarely see this as an AK value bet IMO. however, at the same
time, it's possible that he just though "oooh, 2 pair, I bet" but I really think that 4th heart is a deterrent. as
for AQ, I think it might be weak enough that he'd occasionally take a stab at it thinking he might be ahead
anyway, but I don't think so. as for KK-JJ, he could have KK, betting out to avoid giving a free showdown.
but going back to the flop, would he really check-raise 2 people with the A out? I've seen it but I don't think
it's likely. same for QQ-JJ. so I think you're looking at AxQ , but there seems like an awful lot of doubt
given the size of the pot. there are only 3 combinations of AxQ .
without looking at specific hands, we can go through a similar process. what's he thinking and representing?
on the flop, he seems to be representing a hand that's not afraid of an A, which would most likely mean he
has one. on the turn he's just checking and calling, so I assume he doesn't have anything big. the river could
mean he has a hand, but he could also think you're tight and he can push you off a hand. however, given the
presence of the A and K and all the action you put in already, that would be a tough spot to bluff.
in summary, I think in order to fold this, you really have to "trust" this guy not to pull anything and to have
what he's representing, which is probably the nut flush.
EDIT: Tosh mentioned KQ. that's an interesting possibility, check-raising the flop to push you over a
pocket pair, calling with a gut shot, then betting a K as a kind of bluff
sthief09
GoTI feel like AK might tend to value bet less just so he won't have to pay off that raise. I see players get weak
with mediocre holdings on the river all the time. They want to get to showdown as cheaply as possible to
see if they're good. they don't want to have to deal with a raise.
bicyclekick
Are you saying that after reading through this post, you still think calling is correct, or are you just saying
that that's what you would have done at the time?
You left out the most important part - the "I play bad"
I play bad and make these calls because I'm not good enough at telling the situations where a fold is in order
from those where it's not, as I've shown in the past by posting hands where I tried a fold on the river and I
got blasted for it. I think in these situations it's often less of a mistake to call when you should fold than fold
when you should call, so what i'm saying is i'm not a good enough player to make a judgement if i'm good
one in 15 or whatever it is but damn i have a decent hand so I'll show it down.
^^^^ sux at poker.
Chris Daddy Cool
Why?
154
when i had originally read this hand, i knew folding was out of the question and i knew you guys were
putting the raise or call test to see how far we want to push our EV. problem is i wasn't quite sure how close
it was between each one so i went for the default line.
also, i played hand similiarly to this hand the other day on pp 15/30 and raised the river only to get pure 3bet bluffed and i folded. maybe playing on 15 has made me soft...
Tosh
I was just pointing out that everybody thinks this is a calling situation just because they have a good two
pair in a large pot.
Actually I think this is a calling situation because, having read the arguments, I am still not convinced.
Throughout the whole thread I have seen no reasons given for why an apparently TAGish player bets this
river with AK - and that is the only hand we want to raise against.
The Dude
Even though the A really can't help villian's hand against Hero, it sure looks to him like it does. And there
are a lot of players in Party's 15-30 game that would be willing to bet it and fold to a raise - after all, AK
can't possibly raise this river right?
When you look at the numbers GoT broke down, he doesn't have to make this fold very often at all to make
the raise correct. Obviously Hero is not folding his hand, so the question is whether or not raising is better
than folding.
The way his action went down looks a lot like AK to me - with other hands being possible as well. But,
again, if you look at the numbers GoT broke down, he doesn't have to fold very often at all to make raising
more profitable than calling.
Justin A
Very interesting hand. I see how you put villain's most likely hand as AK, but I don't see why you don't give
more likelyhood to AA. I don't think the lack of a flop cap makes AA very unlikely.
On another note, this would be a check if the SB had checked, right?
GuyOnTilt
so the question is whether or not raising is better than folding.
Um, no, it's really not. As for Tosh's question, as The Dude mentioned, it appeared the A helped him.
There really aren't that many hands he has here where that card helps. If it didn't and he's on a pure bluff,
there's no difference between a call and a raise, so those instances have no bearing on my decision. The only
hands an A helps really are QQ with a heart, AQ with the Q of hearts, KQ with the Q of hearts, AA, and
AK.
QQ is a possibility. Not a huge one given him flop c/r after my PF cap, flop bet, and most importantly, the
caller between us on the flop. AQ with one heart is also possible, but again not a huge liklihood for the
same reasons. A player with his numbers doesn't 3-bet KQo from the blinds. It's still a possibility 'cause
maybe the 1-2k hands I hands I had on him were a cold run of starting hands or maybe he's slightly tilting. It
didn't seem like it from his play thus far in the session though, so I'm not putting a whole lot of weight into
KQo. So those three are slight possibilities, and AA and AK make up the rest of the time he's not on a pure
bluff. Yes, maybe once in a blue moon he'll have a set that he check-called with on the turn, but basically
no. BTW, I don't think he's on a bluff here very often at all, just 'cause there's not a whole lot of hands that
he can have after the turn that allow for him to just have a bluff.
So back to AA and AK. If both those hands will always play the same up to this point, he's four times as
likely to have AK, ala Bayesian principles. So keeping that in mind, if we give him AA or one of the other
hands that beats me that isn't folding 80% of the time, AK that is folding to a raise 15% of the time, and AK
155
that isn't folding 5% of the time, which I think it a gross overstatement of his hand range, I should still raise.
It's a .15 BB difference. The range of hands that I believe is more realistic given my opponent puts the
difference at 1.15 BB's, which makes the decision clear cut for me.
cnfuzzd
so the question is whether or not raising is better than folding.
Um, no, it's really not.
I would never want to speak for The Dude, but im 98% sure this is a typo, especially given how the rest of
the post is deliberating between calling and raising. Also, arent you two roommates? Couldnt you just like,
reach over and smack him or something....
Dude?
peace
john nickel
The Dude
It was.
Tosh
I don't doubt your numbers or your logic as to what he could have pre river, just why he bets AK if he's a
predictable player (is that your general feeling?).
He needs a reason to bet AK, and if has bothered to put you on a range of hands by now it has to be pretty
narrow, I don't think he puts you on anything worse than AK anyway. Don't players like this just check call?
Or at least never fold, maybe I'm giving him too little credit, or maybe even too much I'm just finding it
hard to actually believe 15% of the time his bet here is AK that he is prepared to fold.
Entity Section
Entity?!?!
Yeah, Entity gets a section too. He gives some of the best advice in micros (and I mean that in the history
of the micros forum) and he’s one of the few who has stuck around to keep teaching after graduating
through to the world of small stakes, and higher soon I’m sure. If you’re in the micros forum, you should
know to read any post he writes, whether it is the start of a thread, or part of a discussion on playing suited
cards for a raise from the SB, that you don’t quite understand yet.
What about xxxxxx?
Don’t worry, xxxxxx will probably be getting a section in here sooner than later too. You’ll notice a lot of
big names who are almost completely absent from the collection right now, or only show up in one or two
156
threads. This was a lot of work, and there’s a lot more to be done. I reached 2500 posts faster than I was
expecting though, so I had to release this early.
If you want to have your own section, start writing really good advice, and start some threads for the
purpose of teaching people, not just questioning your play or showing off. The first few attempts will
probably be a little ugly (do a search on my failure at trying to make an easier way to calculate pot odds),
but stick with it and it will just start to come out of you. Suddenly you’ll be making sense, and then maybe
one day you’ll be pages 1435-1470.
AK hits top pair, rivers top two, and I never raise.
Entity
Villain seems to be a good TAG (~20% VPIP, 11% PFR, good overall aggression levels) with solid play.
He seems to play like most microlimit players, from what I've seen. We have yet to have a confrontation.
The button seems to be suffering from a mild form of retardation; he has a difficult time finding the fold
button (but to what extent, I'm not sure).
Let's toss this one out there for the cult of aggression to hound me on.
Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (7 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is MP2 with A , K .
2 folds, Hero raises, 1 fold, Button calls, SB 3-bets, 1 fold, Hero caps, Button calls, SB calls.
Flop: (13 SB) J
,K
,2
(3 players)
157
SB bets, Hero calls, Button calls.
Turn: (8 BB) J (3 players)
SB bets, Hero calls, Button calls.
River: (11 BB) A (3 players)
SB bets, Hero calls, Button calls.
Final Pot: 14 BB
mmbt0ne
What's wrong with this? Keeping button in the hand means more money for the pot without you having to
risk more of your own money. It's like a bonus when you split with his AK.
Dead
I like it. I don't see the point of raising the river here, because if Button folds and SB calls then you win the
same amount you would if you called and let Button overcall(is that the word?) behind you. There is less
risk this way because you would hate to get 3bet here.
olliejen
i like it. A lot.
you use SB's aggression vs him when he's overextending TT, QQ.
you have have position (and don't fear a Button raise) so you lose the minimum when SB crushes you with
Jx, AA, KK. no raise keeps Button in for when you chop KA.
spacemonkey57
You raised preflop
I like it. You can't really protect your hand on the flop. I think the turn is one of those way ahead or way
behind things, and if you were behind on the turn then you're still behind on the river.
Are you raising a blank on the turn?
kenberman
if the button is that calling-station-esque, then I think you can raise the river. I don't think SB is folding for
1 more...so it's close.
Entity
I don't know if Button will call two on the river. I'd say there's a 90% chance he calls for one bet and a 60%
chance he calls two.
I also still don't have a clue about SB's range of hands, but I'd say it's AA-TT, with TT and QQ being
slightly longshots (but still possible, if he wants to try to push me off of a better hand and get it HU with
Button), AQs, and AK.
All that said, I think raising the river is pretty close.
Shillx
Raise the flop. You have top pair and in this game, that is as good as the nuts...you really missed a lot of
bets here dude.
jskills
One sometimes-a-vowel for you?
158
Y?
Why not raise the flop?
Why not raise the turn? (he has JJ?)
And why not raise the river?
I don't get it ...
Entity
What range of hands would you put a decent TAG on here when he leads into me?
jskills
Good question. Range of hands could be:
AK
AKs
TT
QQ
JJ
KK
AA
So with the last 3 (JJ, AA and KK) you have problems, but with the first 4 you do not. I guess I don't
understand the complete lack of aggression on every post flop street for you. It seems at some point you can
swing back no? At least to get a feel for where he is at post-flop?
I'm learning more about this game every day - that's for sure.
Shillx
QQ and TT are doubtful. But I would put KQ into the mix for sure.
jskills
I thought of KQs, but to reraise pre-flop with that? I can't see doing that right?
Entity
It's 7-handed, so an aggressive player might try to push me off of my hand by 3-betting a bit light. I doubt
he's 3-betting KQs, but it's possible. I'd say it's as possible as him betting QQ or TT into me on the flop
trying to push me off of AQs or get me to fold a better hand.
Shillx
I thought of KQs, but to reraise pre-flop with that? I can't see doing that right?
Well the hero is sLA-A and the villian looks to be sLA-A. Hero open raises from MP2 (not like he raised
UTG) and got called by an awful button. I'm thinking that he might re-pop KQ from the SB given the
action. The main reason being that he wants to get the BB out.
Yobz
I only read the first couple of posts saying that this is played perfectly...
What about raising the flop? And then calling down after villian 3-bets, or if he then calls and checks the
turn, betting there...if he pulls a stop-n-go with the J falling you can call down from there...comon guys, get
some aggression, the calling station will call no matter what, dont worry about him dropping from this...
Entity
Against a decent villain, what will aggression do for me when I have the best hand? What will it do for me
when I have the wort hand?
I don't think this guy was a great TAG, by any means. However, he could certainly find his ass in the dark
159
and could beat up on the worse players at the table. He could easily find a fold with TT here and probably
with QQ as well.
Chris Daddy Cool
perfectly played.
for all those saying raise the flop. why? at most it gets you 1 extra BB (the button calling two cold and the
SB calling the raise) but will cost you a shytload when you're behind because SB will 3-bet you on this flop
or checkraise the turn and you're stuck in a position with an aggressive player who might be putting moves
on you with a retard button in the hand.
So really the only hand you're missing value on is KQ. But will SB 3-bet KQ from the blinds here? Not
many players do. I wouldn't, and I'm about as aggressive as it gets. On this flop there are:
8 combinations of KQ available,
6 combinations of AK where you chop with (we don't know that the A will come on the river),
3 combinations of AA where you lose,
1 combination of KK where you lose,
3 combination of JJ where you lose (this is on the flop so we don't know that the turn will be a J),
6 combinations of QQ where you don't want him to fold,
6 combinations of TT where you don't want him to fold,
also if he is aggressive enough to raise KQ from the blinds, he could very well be aggressive enough to raise
99 from the blinds as well, so add in another 6 combinations.
Given that KQ isn't all that unlikely to begin with and add that to the fact even it if was its marginal to raise
at best, callign down is the best option.
Remember Entity capped preflop and the SB is showing no fear by betting into him. He is usually either
chopping, way behind, or way ahead probably in that order too because its unlikely he'll bet QQ or TT on
that river, Bayes or not.
spacemonkey57
So wait, was my reasoning actually good here about the way ahead or way behind on the turn?
Entity
Combine that with the fact that I'm allowing Button to call easily with hands that are usually drawing close
to dead, and yeah, that's it. If he's betting QQ, I want him to keep betting QQ, so raising here sucks. If he's
betting KK, JJ, AA, then raising here really sucks.
chaz64
Rob, you have only one villain behind you on this flop. Do you raise if you have two or more yet to act, to
protect your hand?
Shillx
It depends on the pot size and what the villian will do. Let's say that the pot is 30 bets when the SB leads out
and the hero is next to act. Does it do him much good to raise right now?
It is very tough to answer because we need to know if the SB will bet again on the turn. So if he bets and
everyone calls, it does us no good if he will check the turn with QQ when 4th street bricks out. If the villian
will keep betting until shown resistance, then it would probably be correct to call the flop and raise the turn
(that raise best protects our hand). However if he will only bet the turn if we are beat, then it is better to
raise the flop for value. It does us no good to wait because now we are sucking wind and paying 3 big bets
at the same time.
Entity
160
Rob, you have only one villain behind you on this flop. Do you raise if you have two or more yet to act, to
protect your hand?
A flop raise doesn't offer a whole lot of protection if there are multiple people in the pot, but I might raise
for value then. It depends on the players and how I feel they will react to a flop raise.
DoctorDrew (Did I understand the concept, or just miss out on bets?)
SB is sLAA and pretty aggressive post-flop (29/11.7/4)
Button is a calling station, will fold to 2 bets.
Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (10 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is MP2 with 3 , 3 .
2 folds, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls, Hero calls, 2 folds, Button calls, SB completes, BB checks.
Flop: (6 SB) 3 , A , J (6 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG+2 checks, MP1 checks, Hero bets, Button calls, SB calls, BB folds, UTG+2
calls, MP1 folds.
Turn: (5 BB) Q (4 players)
SB checks, UTG+2 checks, Hero bets, Button calls, SB raises, UTG+2 folds, Hero calls, Button calls.
River: (11 BB) 9 (3 players)
SB bets, Hero calls, Button calls.
Final Pot: 14 BB
Entity
I would 3-bet the turn. You're good here > 66% of the time and on this board there's a reasonable
expectation that Button, despite your reads, is on a draw that might call multiple bets.
toss
Went into call down mode way too soon. You gotta stop being afraid of them monsters
QQ against a preflop capper.
Entity
Villain seems to be a very aggressive TAG. I’ve got him at 20% VPIP, 12.5% PFR, with pretty high
aggression levels. He seems good postflop but I’ve only got about 150 hands on him; I did watch him cap
PF, cap flop and raise turn against a known LAG with 99 (the board was 8-high and monotone), so he’s
pretty capable of gonzo aggression when it’s called for. We’ve yet to have any sort of confrontation at the
table.
The Button is an uber calling station. Really really bad player.
What's my line here?
Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (7 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is SB with Q , Q .
2 folds, MP2 raises, 1 fold, Button calls, Hero 3-bets, 1 fold, MP2 caps, Button calls, Hero calls.
Flop: (13 SB) J
Hero...
,K
,2
(3 players)
161
dkernler
Is villain aware of you? i.e. Will he slow down without TP against you?
I suck, but I'm pretty much thinking way ahead or way behind here. I c/r, call a 3-bet, and call down with no
aggression from button or super scary cards.
I'm sure it's the wrong play, but I'm coming to realize that it's best to post my bad ideas and at least read
what I'm doing wrong.
PS - I imagine it should be '13 SB', not '13 Hero' as the value of the pot. Great as you are, there can be only
one Hero.
Entity
If you think you're way ahead or way behind, checkraising the flop isn't a great play.
I'm entertaining suggestions -- bet/fold? Check/fold? Bet-call? Check-call down and pray he went gonzo
with TT because of Button?
KingOtter
He's willing to cap with 99 vs. known lags, but you're not a known lag, right?
So he's probably got a premium hand, since he's seen you for 150 hands he knows you're TAG. So AQ AJ
are doubtful here.
I'd probably bet/fold to a raise.
davelin
Ugh, this isn't pretty. I'm over 90% sure you're behind.
Entity
Ugh, this isn't pretty. I'm over 90% sure you're behind.
Check/fold?
davelin
It seems like the best option although it doesn't seem quite right. If I calculate it correctly, you need to be
ahead like 80% of the time to make a call-down correct (assuming Button comes along), if you bet/fold I
think you're going to be raised a very high % of the time. Check-raising is just silly IMO.
Entity
My hand only needs to be good at showdown around 1 time out of 6 for me to break even check-calling
down, though. How close are we now? I hate this.
dkernler
If you think you're way ahead or way behind, checkraising the flop isn't a great play.
I'm entertaining suggestions -- bet/fold? Check/fold? Bet-call? Check-call down and pray he went gonzo
with TT because of Button?
Very true. We want to invest as little as possible in that situation.
With a cap from relatively early position, couldn't we narrow down villain's cards a bit? We're behind pretty
much every capping hand. Of AA-JJ and AKs, we're not ahead of any. If villain would cap with TT or AQs,
we could still be ahead. It seems worth investing one more SB to find out. Upon reflection, I think bet/fold
seems reasonable. Also, we don't really have to call down just to see what villain had because button is in
there and will call down for us.
162
But as usual, this thinking could be way off.
droolie
The list of pf capping hands you currently beat is quite small. We are likley drawing to 3 outs. I hate it but I
probably check fold this. If I'm feeling frisky I callthe flop and see what happens on the turn.
iluzion
Hero check/folds.
Capped preflop I would think its too likely for him to be holding AA/AK/KK/JJ. Being so aggressive he
might even be on KQs or just possibly KJs. I'm definitly getting out of this if he shows interest.
JerseyTom
Echoing what others said, you're really only ahead of TT, 99, AQs (if he'd even cap with that) and your
position blows. Way ahead or way behind, blah, blah, blah. C/R'ing the flop here would awful.
I think I like bet/fold here, but I'm king of the weak-tighties. I'd have to think presence of the Button (donk
or not) protects the pot somewhat, no? However, if TAG just calls your flop bet, I don't know what to do if I
don't spike a Q or pick up one of my back door straight draws on the turn (I start thinking "set")...
flair1239
I would check-call. See the turn and reevaluate.
The reason I am check calling is not because of MP2, but because of the button.
I think he protects this pot, because there is a good chance MP2 just has a decent hand that he opened raised
with (med PP, Axs..etc). If the Button is bad he could be CC with any face (specifically a hand like k8o,
k4o...etc).
As for the possibility of being ahead, I think there is a good chance that you are. However, there is not much
danger to giving a free card, since an Ace is the only other overcard that is out there.
I think betting out is a waste of time, since it is unlikely that both will fold. Also betting for value is pretty
suspect, because it is likely you are behind and drawing to somewhere between 2.5-3.5 outs. The other thing
is that MP2 is going to be firing anyway, but even if you bet and he raised, the calling station would
probably still come (if he is indeed really, really bad.).
Entity
Button is really really bad. He'd call down on an AAKKQ board that was capped preflop with 66.
DMBFan23
bet folding to a flop raise would suck a LOT.
at the least, if I decide I might be best, I want to bet, let PFR raise (he'd do this regardless of whether we're
beat IMO to protect his hand) and then call that flop raise and reevaluate. however, I don't think we want to
let PFR protect out hand for us, because I think we're behind a lot here.
Personally, I want to check call the flop closing the action getting 15-1 and keeping the retarded button in,
and check fold a turn blank, check call a draw, or c/r a Q. we have a backdoor straight draw here, plus a set
is good a LOT of the time. giving us 3-3.5 outs, we can peel on the flop here. plus if it goes bet-raise, we're
out cheap.
JerseyTom
This is pretty compelling. I like it a lot. I'm printing this out and keeping it in my wallet...
shadow29
163
This is pretty close. I think that the best line is check/call, check/fold a non T, A, or Q, check/raise a Q, and
check/call a T, and probably check/call an A (depends on the action tho).
Honestly, a case could be made for check/folding here, depending on just how "gonzo" this guy is. Like is
he capping TT, or just JJ-AA and AK?
kenberman
he's 12.5 pfr, and entity saw him cap 99. I think his range is fairly wide, but not crazy.
GrunchCan
Assuming villan is a good player, and an observant player who knows you to be good as well, we're either:
- Way behind an overpair, flopped set, tp or unlikely 2 pr
- Drawing dead to a flopped set
- chopping with qq
- way ahead tt or 99
- way ahead a stone bluff
I check fold the flop. Villan's got the bigger whacking stick in this hand, and I don't want to get tied to the
pot drawing to a set that is very likely to be 2nd best anyway.
Aaron W.
I've only read about half the posts, so I hope I'm not redundant here.
The fact that villain is agressive means that he's leading with anything he has. Your hand is too good and the
pot too large to check-fold here. Since you expect button to contribute almost 1-1 for every bet you put in,
you are really getting something like 2:1 on all bets going into the pot postflop. This makes calling down a
little bit more enticing.
Capping hands for him might look something like AA-TT, AK-AQ. You lose to:
AA = 6 ways
KK = 3 ways
JJ = 3 ways
AK = 12 ways ===== Total: 24 ways
You beat:
TT = 6 ways
AQ = 8 ways ==== Total: 14 ways
If this is right, you're getting some overlay because button is contributing all the way. Part of me wants to
throw in AJs (an extra couple hands) because it sounds like agressive player would be willing to cap since
he knows he squeezes extra money from the bad button. I vote to be a calling station against the agressive
player. I don't expect him to fail to bet any street (again, it's value from the button).
DeathDonkey
I think you need to see the turn at least. I'm torn between check/call, check/fold, and check/call all the way.
I think maybe you could look him up here and see if he's overplaying AJ or something. The button's
presence helps too.
Entity
Ok, so for those of us who said we should bet and see if he raises:
Hero bets. Villain calls. Button calls.
Turn: J
(16SB)
164
What now?
toss
I would bet and pray that he folds. If he raises I'm lost and would probably end up folding.
DeathDonkey
Well since you did that on the flop I don't see why not bet again. I'm learning that betting and folding to a
raise isn't quite as cool as it was when I first learned how, but that seems like the play.
Malificent
I smell trap here. I'd check call my way to showdown. I want to see a showdown, and it would suck to get
raised on the turn . It just smells like KK and someone who isn't particularly worried about giving out a free
card.
KingOtter
The J can only hurt. I don't see that our position is better now than it was on the flop. Now you might even
be behind button!
Pot's frickin' huge, but you aren't folding either by betting.
Check/call down. May the best man win.
Tough hand.
Entity
Well since you did that on the flop I don't see why not bet again. I'm learning that betting and folding to a
raise isn't quite as cool as it was when I first learned how, but that seems like the play.
-DeathDonkey
Hmm.
Ok. Hero bets, Villain calls, Button calls.
River: A
What now?
As Zehn
Wow, now I'm really confused. Folding at this point would be wrong, so I would check/call hoping the
button didn't fill a draw.
toss
No freaking idea what to do now. I check/cryingcall.
DeathDonkey
Wow you turn and river bad. Ok I think betting is out. How about we check and call one bet from the villain
if the button folds, but don't overcall. If it goes check, check, bet I think you should just fold.
There may also be a value bet here, but it would be really thin. You could bet and fold to a raise again.
Wow that would be thin.
PuckNPoker
Bet the river for value...
Seriously though you are behind every single hand I could reasonably think of for 2 callers. Unless Villian
165
had QQ,TT, or 99. On the flip side that is a scary board for everyone else as well but I would have a hard
time betting out here.
DMBFan23
sup,
I did some pokerstoving on this, and it doesn't look as bad on the flop as I figured, although I wouldn't start
raising for value. I gave the capper a VERY liberal range of capping hands. I'm also assuming button is a
COMPLETE moron.
Code:
Board: Js Kd 2h
Dead:
equity (%)
Hand 1:
Hand 2:
AJs, KQs, AKo-AQo }
Hand 3:
win (%) / tie (%)
35.4968 %
51.0401 %
[
[
00.34
00.50
00.01
00.01
]
]
{ QhQd }
{ AA-99, AKs-
13.4631 %
[
00.13
00.00
]
{ random }
then, the turn doesnt change much
Code:
Board: Js Kd 2h Jd
Dead:
equity (%)
Hand 1:
Hand 2:
AJs, KQs, AKo-AQo }
Hand 3:
win (%) / tie (%)
32.2233 %
52.5978 %
[
[
00.31
00.52
00.01
00.01
]
]
{ QhQd }
{ AA-99, AKs-
15.1789 %
[
00.15
00.00
]
{ random }
however, the river...
Code:
Board: Js Kd 2h Jd As
Dead:
equity (%)
Hand 1:
Hand 2:
AJs, KQs, AKo-AQo }
Hand 3:
win (%) / tie (%)
20.7911 %
61.2290 %
[
[
00.20
00.60
00.01
00.02
]
]
{ QhQd }
{ AA-99, AKs-
17.9800 %
[
00.17
00.01
]
{ random }
166
now this of course can all be invalidated by whether or not he'll play the hands that beat you a certain way
versus those hands that don't beat you (I think he dumps 99/TT on the turn, and he probably raises a K
before now unless it's KK), but it really looks to me like you're screwed here.
btspider
i check call the flop and reevaluate. maybe the button raises and lets you fold. maybe you pick up a straight
draw and get to check-call the turn as well. maybe you hit a set and can check-raise.
another option i was considering is to bet-call the flop and check-fold the turn UI. raising TT/99 would be
pretty "gonzo" if he knows your ranges.
added: given the flop action, i'd bet-fold both big streets.
Entity
Ok, to all of you who said I should bet the flop in this hand:
Does my play in this hand make more sense now? ( Link to previous chapter!!!)
Thanks to olliejen, Davelin and others who knew where this hand was from, but didn't post the links.
I was villain in this hand (with AK), and the TAG bet every street into me. I really think he should have
considered check-calling the flop and check-folding the turn, since I can be very aggressive, but I'm only
capping hands like 99 and TT against a completely gonzo LAGbot, and not a TAG.
Fastplaying is the new slowplaying
Entity
This one is for all of you wondering what to do when you flop a monster head's up.
Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (8 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is BB with A , 7 .
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, CO folds, Button folds, Hero checks.
Flop: (2.50 SB) 9 , J , 3
Hero bets, UTG+1 calls.
(3 players)
Turn: (2.25 BB) A (3 players)
Hero bets, UTG+1 raises, Hero 3-bets, UTG+1 calls.
River: (8.25 BB) 8 (3 players)
Hero bets, UTG+1 raises, Hero 3-bets, UTG+1 calls.
Final Pot: 14.25 BB
olliejen
Villain shows Q T
Hero shows his monitor *middle finger*
btspider
how can he wake up on an Ace and a 4-flush? red Ace, K
is one answer...
? edit: well, incorrectly waking up on the river
167
Entity
# of clubs in Villain's hand <= 0.
btspider
not possible.
Entity
# of clubs in Villain's hand < 0.
Happy now?
PS - Fastplaying is still the new slowplaying.
btspider
is it really "new" or has it always been and some are just discovering it?
Entity
Personally, I've always been a fan of the bet/bet/bet line, but I know some people are sticklers for leaving
bets on the table. To each his own, I say.
PS - You're still at work? ha ha.
BruinEric
I appreciate your post. While I have a LOT of areas in which to improve, I am a strong proponent of betting
with the lead.
Hey...sometimes everybody folds. But lots of the time you're gonna get called down.
I called one raise from a blind the other day and sucked out the guy at my right with AA who only coldcalled another raiser pre-flop.
I did him the favor of telling him that I woulda folded pre-flop if he'd raised it up, which probably set him
on semi-tilt as he proceeded to tell me that by looking at the Poker Tracker stats he had on me, that wasn't
true. (I looked later and found that I'd never cold-called 2 raises with those cards, but whatever...) He added
that he shares his PT database with several other players...niiice.
Anyway...for those of you who play me, you can know that when I bet out on the flop I have the nuts. Every
time.
Entity
Bump. New players should look at this. So should old ones that like slowplaying.
Knoler
Slightly off topic, since it's 6-max, but it's true there, too...
Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is SB with T , A .
UTG folds, MP calls, Button calls, Hero raises, BB calls, MP calls, Button calls.
Flop: (8 SB) Q , 2 , 6 (4 players)
Hero bets, BB calls, MP folds, Button calls.
Turn: (5.50 BB) 4 (3 players)
Hero bets, BB raises, Button folds, Hero 3-bets, BB calls.
168
River: (11.50 BB) 4
Hero bets, BB calls.
(2 players)
Final Pot: 13.50 BB
Best of all, I feel like I'm more apt to pick up small pots as well -- betting out with my flopped flushes, sets,
two pairs, and TPTKs yields a table image that camoflages when I'm betting out the flop with an
unimproved AK.
ucfryan
The check/call wait for the turn line is what I used to take, but you lose bets by doing that. Fish are fish.
Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (10 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is BB with A , 3 .
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Button calls, SB
completes, Hero checks.
Flop: (8 SB) 8 , 9 , Q (8 players)
SB checks, Hero bets, UTG calls, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP3 folds, CO calls, Button calls, SB folds.
Turn: (6.50 BB) J (5 players)
Hero bets, UTG calls, MP1 calls, CO calls, Button folds.
River: (10.50 BB) 2 (4 players)
Hero bets, UTG calls, MP1 calls, CO calls.
Final Pot: 14.50 BB
bottomset
yeah slowplaying every big hand is a major leak, even slowplaying a lot is still a major problem
and besides half the time, the fish give action the whole way and you are just throwing bets away
remember slowplaying purpose, to allow ppl to improve to second-best, where they will give action, when
showing stregth now will make them fold
well at good micro tables, they give action regardless so you are just losing bets
Just one more to make sure you understand this…
Knoler
Once more with feeling; bet your hands!
UberFish is one of the best LAGs I've found in a while. And at a 1/2 full table, no less.
Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (6 max, 9 handed) converter
Preflop: Superman is BB with T , T .
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, CO folds, Button raises, SB folds, Superman
3-bets, Button caps, Superman calls.
Flop: (8.50 SB) T
,3
,5
(2 players)
169
Superman bets, Button raises, Superman 3-bets, Button caps, Superman calls.
Turn: (8.25 BB) 3 (2 players)
Superman bets, Button raises, Superman 3-bets, Button caps, Superman calls.
River: (16.25 BB) J (2 players)
Superman bets, Button raises, Superman 3-bets, Button caps, Superman calls.
Final Pot: 24.25 BB
Results in your face below:
Superman has Tc Ts (full house, tens full of threes).
Button has Kh 5d (two pair, fives and threes).
Outcome: Superman wins 24.25 BB.
Homer Section
Homer is probably best known in the Zoo (Internet forum) at this point, but he used to be a great contributor
to the SS forum. You’ve probably all read his posts on building a bankroll, and most of you have seen
everything he’s written about casino-whoring too probably, but none of that is included here. I really
wanted this to be about becoming a better player, and not just a richer player. If you haven’t read what I’m
talking about, go check out the internet forum, and do a search for user name Homer and “–Re:” in the
subject box.
Despite not including some of his more famous threads, I am including one of the greatest contribution to
2+2, which is the streaks spreadsheet he made. It’s amazing to go through the simulations and see what
kind of streak a winning player can have over the long run.
I don’t think it’s listed in any of the posts (it might be in the Zoo thread he made, but I got this from the SS
forum) but you can find his actual spreadsheet at my website. Go to:
http://www.f2f2s.com
and follow the link(s), it should be pretty easy to find. Make fun of the layout too, I was really bombed
when I made it, and it sucks hardcore. Unfortunately, I took the <blink> tags out.
170
Hand Reading Exercise
Homer
Party 2/4. UTG (competent, fairly straightforward) limps, I limp from UTG+1, SB completes, BB checks.
Flop - Js 9h 3d
BB bets, UTG raises, I three-bet, BB calls, UTG calls.
Turn - 9d
UTG bets, I raise, BB coldcalls, UTG calls.
River - 2d
UTG bets, I raise, BB folds, UTG three-bets, I cap and UTG calls.
-- Homer
Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)
I'll bite.
99, 33, J9s, or A9s.
PocketRocketsBF
QdTd, Td8d
J.R.
33 for you or maybe 99, possibly J9s
open ended straight draw for BB
A9 or A J for UTG or maybe JJ or less likely J9s
Trix
171
99 ? , cuz i think u would have raised preflop with JJ and there arent other hands i could see you press
"Raise any" with
Homer
How's about some analysis?
Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)
Analysis, the man says. OK then99, 33, J9s, or A9s are what I believe Homer has. He doesn't have JJ or an overpair, he would have raised
PF in this spot. He also certainly isn't holding J3 or 93 or other such trash. I don't think Homer would be 3betting a draw on the flop, which rules out hands like QTs or T8s (which are verrrry marginal EP limps to
begin with). The cap from Homer on the river screams full house - therefore, I think the most likely
holdings of the four I mentioned at the beginning are 99, 33 or J9s.
I figure UTG for KdJd, maybe AdJd if he's passive.
J.R.
BB is on a draw. UTG limped, then called the 3-bet. UTG has a made hand that wants to see what comes
off on the turn, most likely AJ or a slowplayed J9. You most likely have a set (not JJ) with an outside shot at
2 pair (J9), you are not pushing a draw here (unlikely to limp T8 or QT UTG+1 and you would not 3-bet for
a free card against a straightforward flop raiser).
The turn lead by UTG could A J or a 9, but if he has a 9 he is unlikely to be full as J9 would probably
cap flop. You are full to raise again here, as you wouldn't 3-bet the flop with just a 9 against a
straightforward player's raise (maybe A 9 but that can't be on the turn).
UTG 3-betting the river is consistent with nut flush, full house or an overplayed 9. Your cap is at least a
full-house (33, J9) or quads.
brian0729
Im still torn. My choices for you would be J9s, 99 or QTd. As far as the flop. I dont think you three bet w/o
a set, two pair or huge draw (Im a friggin anaylsis genius). I really dont like QTd or the J9s (I wouldnt limp
w/ that here, I dont think you did). You would have raised any over pair or JJ preflop. I dont think you
would have limped w/ 33. That leaves 99 by that seems to easy.
Still thinking about the villian's hand.
bunky9590
Here's my guess without reading any other posts.
UTG= A J
BB= Q T
Homer= 3 3
I hope I'm close.
Homer
I really dont like QTd or the J9s (I wouldnt limp w/ that here, I dont think you did)
gonores
You
33 - 60%
J9s - 35%
172
99 - 5%
These are the only hands with which a reasonable player would hammer at every postflop opportunity but
still limp with preflop
UTG
KdJd - 50%
QdJd - 30%
AdJd - 10%
JdTd - 10%
Has to be a flush if he held up on the turn, has to have the Jd to raise the flop and bet the turn. Prolly
wouldn't 3-bet river with JdTd, Prolly would've raised preflop with AdJd. He bet the turn to prevent your
free card.
brian0729
I agree w/ AJd for UTG. JR nailed it, this play seems consistent for the nut flush.
BB missed a st8 draw.
rharless
BB: QT, or KQ with a diamond
UTG: XJd
Homer: 33 or J9s (both possible EP limps at a loose-passive-preflop table of 2-4)
brian0729
I knew that was coming. I am in a real pump or dump PF phase right now. I am trying to work in a few
more hands though. I just am not thrilled about the suited one gappers in EP.
Homer
Me - J 9
Opponent - A
J
BTW, I've been seeing more and more of this "bet the flop, call a raise and lead the turn when you pick up a
draw" garbage and have been trying to raise the turn more in a conscious effort to punish such plays.
rharless
I've been seeing more and more of this "bet the flop, call a raise and lead the turn when you pick up a
draw" garbage
I make this play sometimes...
Homer
Certainly it's an alright play to make from time to time, but some people do it every time. In this case, given
the fact that I three-bet the flop, he has no reason to believe I won't raise the turn. And even if there's some
chance I won't raise, he knows there's a zero percent chance of me folding.
Allan
Hi Homer,
What do the table conditions have to be like for you in order to make calls with this and other such hands?
No preflop raises ever? One or 2 every orbit? etc....I notice that HEPFAP reccomends playing this in a
typical game but I've never felt comfortable with it in all but the best games.
173
Homer
What do the table conditions have to be like for you in order to make calls with this and other such hands?
The table must be fairly passive. Definitely moreso than the average Party 2/4 game.
I notice that HEPFAP reccomends playing this in a typical game but I've never felt comfortable with it in
all but the best games.
I think what HPFAP refers to as a typical game is more passive than an average online game.
-- Homer
DO NOT ASSUME YOUR OPPONENTS ARE SANE
Homer
I'm dealt Th 8s in the BB. Two limpers, SB completes, I check.
Flop - Qs 6s 8c
I bet, button and SB call.
Turn - 8h
I bet, SB calls.
River - 6h
SB bets, I raise, SB reraises and I call.
Need I even tell you what SB had? I'll give you a hint -- he didn't have an 8 (or QQ/66).
Just a friendly reminder to go ahead and cap it with your nut (or close to it) hands, even when you are
"sure" that you are going to chop.
-- Homer
GuyOnTilt
SB had 22 and thought his 3-pair was good. I agree though; I've failed to reraise on the river too many times
figuring it was a chop, only to find out that my opponent was an idiot and that I missed a bet or two.
Homer
My opponent had a 6. This wasn't meant to be a tricky post -- just a reminder that people can and will make
plays that make no sense. Don't assume you are going to chop!
-- Homer
174
That’s all. Short and sweet.
Streaks
Homer
There has been so much talk about losing streaks here recently that I decided to do a simulation in Excel to
determine how often losing streaks should occur for a winning player with an EV of 1 BB/hr and an SD of
10 BB/hr. I haven't quite finished, but thought I'd post these charts for you. They are all "BB's won vs.
hours played", with the difference being that the first chart is for 10,000 hrs (5 yrs of full time play for a
B&M player), second for 1000 hrs and third for 100 hrs.
Notice that the 10,000 hr chart looks smooth. You'd take that, right? Winning nice and steady at a rate of 1
BB/hr? Now look at the 1000 hr chart. Doesn't look quite so nice, does it? Lastly, look at the 100 hr chart.
Looks painful, wouldn't you say? Now, quickly, look back at the 10,000 hr chart. Ahh, much better.
Remember, just play solid poker and your win rate will fall into place. Don't obsess over losing streaks, or
the big picture won't be so smooth.
BTW, if anyone is interested in doing this on their own, here's what I did:
- In cell A1 in Excel, enter =RAND() to generate a random number between 0 and 1, then copy to cells A2
through A10000
- In cell B1, enter =(X*NORMSINV(A1))+Y, where X is your SD/hr and Y is your EV/hr, then copy to
cells B2 through B10000. This converts the random number to your win for that hour.
- In cell C1, enter =B1 and in cell C2, enter =C1+B2, then copy C2 to cells C3 through C10000. This is
your total win after X hours.
You can then graph column C3 versus time, for 10,000 hrs, 1000 hrs, 100 hrs, or whatever.
175
176
JTG51
Great stuff Homer. Being the geek that I am, I actually have a graph of my own results on Party. To keep it
simple I use my ending balance each day. It's not nearly as up and down as an hourly graph, but there are
still lots of sharp spikes and dips.
My only beef (pun intended) with your post is, I looked at the subject quickly and though it said "steaks"
which made me hungry.
Lost Wages
Thanks Homer.
I like the 1000 hour chart as that represents about a year of play for the dedicated amateur. I count 5 times
that our hero's bankroll dipped >100BB from a previous high point. That's about once every two months.
The worst dip beginning about the 850 hour mark looks to be about 180BB. The average duration of the
losing streak looks to be about 80 hours or about a month of running bad playing 20 hours/week.
It has always been my contention that you cannot say, "I am currently in a losing streak". You can only say,
"I have lost X BB over my last Y hours". Losing streaks can only be seen in hindsight.
Analyst
Homer Nice! Another way to show this type of variation in Excel is through Monte Carlo simulation. You'd need
some type of add-on package like Insight.xla or XLSim, written by Dr. Sam Savage at Stanford, available
at AnalyCorp. I'm not affiliated with them, but have taken a simulation course from Dr. Savage and used the
tools - great stuff, and well worth the $50/$100 if you're into this type of modeling.
Homer
Thanks for the info, Analyst. I've always enjoyed doing this sort of thing, but only have a small amount of
training (Mechanical Reliability course in college). Maybe one day I will take a simulation class and learn
some more.
177
Bob T.
I would also add that the average online player probably has a standard deviation higher than 10 big bets.
Homer
You're right, Bob. I was thinking of the standard numbers for a solid live game player. The same online
player would make about 2 BB/hr and have an SD of 14 BB/hr.
brick
I followed the instructions to create this spreadsheet on my own and was really intrested in what I found.
Hitting F9 to refresh the random #'s can uncover some really big swings. First, I created a graph for a 500 hr
sample. (about what I've played in the last 9 months)
I used the following variables:
Win Rate of 1.5
SD of 14.
I hit F9 about 100 times and witnessed the following:
Min Cummulative result after 500 hr: -100
Max Cummulative result after 500 hr: +1400
....pretty amazing.
Nottom
All the playing with numbers seemed like fun so I made a spreadshhet to represent a LAG with SD of 20
and a EV of -.25/Hour
The first time I ran it, he was up 1800 after 2500 hours after peaking at almost 3K after 2000 hours.
I wonder how many of the next Stu Ungar posters we get on these forums fit this profile.
Homer
I've just done the same thing...sort of. What I did was refresh 10 times to create new random numbers, and
found the largest downswings on each occasion for 10,000 hrs, 1000 hrs and 100 hrs. Here are the numbers:
10,000 hrs
-259.6 BB
-232.9
-227.8
-279.3
-331.2
-367.1
-307.7
-342.2
-387.2
-208.1
Average largest downswing over 10,000 hrs of play = -294.3 BB
1000 hrs
-163.8
-224.1
-141.3
-107.9
-186.6
-233.6
178
-118.3
-122.5
-174.8
-172.5
Average largest downswing over 1000 hrs of play = -164.5 BB's
100 hrs
-50.8
-79.5
-100.7
-62.8
-56.8
-138.0
-73.9
-50.1
-42.2
-43.0
Average largest downswing over 100 hrs of play = -69.8 BB's
brick
An example of the excel file can be downloaded here:
http://help_please1.tripod.com/
Pressing F9 will regenerate the random numbers in order to view the effect that luck alone can have on a
winning player's bankroll.
Homer
I've received a couple of PM's requesting that I repost these charts. The first three are the ones that I
originally posted for a B&M player, and the last three are for an online two-tabler. If anyone wants the
spreadsheet, let me know. It's fun to refresh the simulation (F9) and watch the charts change. It's amazing
how different the short-run can be for two identical players, due purely to random fluctuations.
(NOTE: I removed the first 3 since they’re just 4 pages back)
179
1 Week
180
3 Months
1 Year
-- Homer
181
Clarkmeister Section
Clarkmeister’s really smart, and gives really good advice. There’s only one downside to this; it makes
finding good threads of his virtually impossible. He has so many posts that are so good, but since many of
them are in responses, it makes searching the archives for “–Re: “ and the username Clarkmeister almost
pointless. Luckily, he still had some very good threads that he started, and a few great responses that he
changed the title on.
If you’re ever bored, and want to think about poker on a whole new level, search the Small Stakes and MidHigh forums for all of Clarkmeister’s old posts, and start reading through those threads.
Here, you’ll get probably his most important post for new players, “5 things LL players should ‘unlearn,’”
as well as 2 very interesting low limit hands, and a great response to a 3-6 hand Evan posted a while ago in
Small Stakes. Also, because Clark is such a badass, his thread tend to get visited by some of the other
heavy hitters from the site as well. You’ll see some great responses from Ed Miller, Dynasty, Ulysses(El
Diablo), and others. Responses so good that these threads could’ve gone into sections for those users too,
but since I was looking for Clarkmeister posts, he gets the benefit of the doubt and they go here.
For my money, this is one of the best and most important sections of the collection, so read and re-read this
and make sure you understand everything.
5 things LL players should “unlearn”
182
Clarkmeister
5 things that LL players would be better off "unlearning". This doesn't mean that some of these things aren't
important skills or concepts to incorporate into your game at some point. They are. But they rarely have a
place in LL games against the animals, and they are generally misapplied at the table. Some portrayals may
be slight oversimplifications, but I think the general ideas are legitimate.
1. Raising for a free card.
The most overused play in LL holdem. Its rarely going to be correct to take the free card, and you’ll rarely
get it anyways. More often you will get 3-bet or, if no flush card comes, you will get bet into on the turn
anyways. In addition, you will frequently cost yourself a raise on the turn or river when you hit. Unless you
are in a situation where you have a ton of opponents and are "capping for value", its more often going to be
correct (especially with small flush draws) to eschew the free card raise and play it straight up.
2. Turn check-raise semi-bluffing.
I see more LL players trying to checkraise semibluff on the turn and it never, ever works. It doesn’t even
work well in tougher mid limit games anymore unless you really set it up well on earlier rounds, and no new
draws appear on the turn. As soon as that flush draw appears on the turn though, no middle limit player is
folding because its always in their mind. And not only does it cost you that extra bet on the turn, it
sometimes costs you TWO extra bets on the turn as you get 3-bet. Plus, even when you don't get 3-bet, its
rare that someone doesn't throw that last desperation bluff into the pot on the river. And they almost always
get called. By far the biggest chip burner of otherwise winning players.
3. Playing suited connectors for multiple bets preflop.
Another mistake I see lots of people make is limping in with a hand like 89s, then calling 2 more cold back
to them preflop, or coldcalling 2 on the button with like a raiser and one or 2 callers. These hands are chip
burners and extremely difficult to play well postflop. Its easy to say "I flop a big draw or I get out" but its
rarely, if ever that simple. Too many flops will come something like T83 and suddenly you can’t get out,
and may have to pay quite a bit to either see the river, or find out that you are no good.
4. Big offsuit cards and pairs don’t "play well" in big multiway pots.
Hands like AA-JJ continue to gain EV (and variance) as you add people into the pot. Hands like AK and
AQ also gain value, though its not as pronounced. The idea that one would rather have 78s vs 7 opponents
than AK is a fallacious one. You may need to change some postflop strategies in this situation with your
AKo, but it is still a significantly higher EV hand than the 87s.
5. Folding top pair-no kicker at any sign of resistance on the flop.
All holdem literature admonishes new players to beware of kicker problems. For good reason. Its good to
keep people away from the Ax hands that most new players love. But once you do see the flop with your
big-little combo (Axs, or something like Kx from the BB), the pots are so big in these LL games that unless
the Rock of Gibralter starts raising, you must proceed as if your top pair is the boss and play accordingly.
Too many people will play middle pair aggressively, , jam their flush draws, even raise with bottom pair
and a gutshot, and too many fish will chase even the longest of shots. Punish them and see what happens on
the river when the smoke clears. This doesn’t mean to blindly play til the "bitter end", but it does mean that
you shouldn’t be so ready to assume that you aren’t in the lead. I get the impression that many new players
would rather flop bottom pair than top pair/no kicker, and that’s simply wrong.
DrSavage
Very good post.
100% agree with everything except maybe no 1. Lots of people are passive and have a strong check-to-theraiza tendency. I wouldn't advise this play at 0.5-1 tables and 1-2 tables, but it's more or less fine at 2-4 and
3-6. Just be selective who do you use it against.
183
Joe Tall
2-5 all good.
1. Raising for a free card.
...and you’ll rarely get it anyways. More often you will get 3-bet or, if no flush card comes, you will get bet
into on the turn anyways...
Granted I pick my spots and practice the rest of your rule #1. But this peice is Bull in my games. I get the
free card all the time. I'm sure it's 80% or better. The fools bet out on the turn weather the flush hits or not,
it's beautiful.
Other than that great post, Clark.
Clarkmeister
”I get the free card all the time. I'm sure it's 80% or better. "
"The fools bet out on the turn weather the flush hits or not, it's beautiful. "
Which is it?
Dynasty
I also disagree with #1. Specifically, I disagree with:
Its rarely going to be correct to take the free card
Assuming your raising with a flush draw or open-ended straight draw, it is going to be correct to take the
free card unless your turn bet is getting called by four or more players.
More often you will get 3-bet or, if no flush card comes, you will get bet into on the turn anyways
When I raise for free cards, it is uncommon for me to get 3-bet or bet into on the turn. I get checked to at
least 2/3 of the time.
Al_Capone_Junior
Although I think Clark's post was well thought out, and that he basically has good intentions, I also have to
somewhat agree with Dynasty here. I think Clark's points are somewhat reflective of the games he typically
plays in, more-so than the "typical" low limit game. I know Clark's a Vegas-ite, and I know how the games
are there. And basically, if you are going to play in vegas games, especially during the day, his advice is
well said.
Free card raise: when the game is full of clueless, non-aggressive tourists, the free card raise has usefulness.
Specifically, you are almost always getting in a value raise when you do so, because a game full of loose
passive tourists will rarely reraise, yet almost always pay it off, and there's almost always enough players
where you practically must raise. Against the typical daytime 6-12 Mirage or 10-20 crowd tho, it's a futile
maneuver. They probably will reraise, and then will also bet the turn. Only clueless tourists fall for the free
card ploy, so you should know your players before you try it. Yet the wisdom of Clark's words rings true
when you try to play in the generally tougher games typical of Vegas during the day.
I should throw in a word of agreement with Clark's sentiments on not trying to check-raise semi-bluff the
turn tho. It's really only a useful maneuver heads-up against a pretty darn tight player who's going to fall for
it, i.e. an overly conservative rock. Against loose players, it's futile. Against tough players who are likely to
see through it, it's also futile. It's a move that should RARELY be used, not constantly be used, as is seen in
many cardroom around the country.
184
Ed Miller
I think this is great advice as usual. I especially like your point #5... in fact, I just finished an article about
playing top pair and I pointed this very thing out. I see constantly in posts on this forum, "I played A4s for
two bets on the button because I'm going to fold if an Ace flops" as if folding potentially the best hand is
what turns this play into a winner.
I also disagree a bit with #1. I think there is a lot of value (as I know you do as well) to learning to be
aggressive with drawing hands, especially in late position. If the only reason you are raising is that you are
hoping for a free card, then perhaps your raise is not well-conceived (e.g. you are playing a weak draw that
won't be able to see the river if you miss).
Actually, what I see constantly on this forum (and in games) is people using the free card play on the flop
with a marginal made hand. They want to "see a cheap showdown" so they raise the flop and check the turn.
Blech... I think this play is almost never right. What they are usually doing is giving a free card, not getting
one. If you really want to see a cheap showdown, raise the flop, bet the turn, and check the river. I basically
never raise the flop and check the turn with a made hand.
Joe Tall
Which is it?
Yokies, you're right. You know what it is, I get the free card when I play live, and thus have a vivid memory
of such actions.
Now that I think about it, online, I don't the get free card as often, and when the flush hits they still bet out
online, whereas live they do not.
This may have something to do with image, I assume.
Well, now you've got me thinking about adjustments, thanks.
J.R.
I agree with everything but the idea that you can't get free cards in #1. Most LL holdem games are full of
weak, calling station types. Your point #5 acknowledges this to some degree. Many opponents shut down
when raised, even with the 2-flush on board and a late poisiton bet. Furthermore, many LL players check
when the 3 flush comes on the turn, regardless of whether there was a raise on the flop or not, so I don't
think you lose bets by making this raise. Nonetheless, it is overused and often misapplied. Flame away.
Tosh
1. Raising for a free card.
This point depends completely on individual opponents. Many I have encountered will not bet or raise at all
for the rest of this hand without the nuts after I've raised. Generally the typical opponent will give you a free
card if he has a decent but not great hand. The worst players will just raise no matter what if they've made as
little as 2nd pair and the best will often see what you're doing and come back over the top (especially if
you've made the play before). So IMO raising for a free card works a treat against all but the best and worst
players. I agree completely with the rest, all great.
Joe Tall
Well I rethought and I can remember most of my hands live, I get the free card. Whereas, online I don't get
it as often. As I wrote the statements, each of them came from separtate media.
This has me interested in how image takes such a roll in raising for the free card.
Tosh
Image means a lot more live. Most online weak calling stations don't pay any attention to what others do,
partly because players change so often and also because they just don't think. When playing live these
185
things mean more because they're much more likely to remember things that have happened in front of
them.
oddjob
i've found that the most over-used play is the poorly used check-raise with a monster.
example. Fancy young lad who has just finished reading the latest greatest poker book. he's first to act and
flops a monster in a 6 or 7 handed pot, he checks, it gets checked to a lp player who bets. fancy lad of
course raises. and drives out all the players who would probably call 1 bet. kudos to him he did what he
wanted. he made a fancy play. and he's probably proud of himself of driving out all those players who were
drawing quite thin to his monster. why these guys want all those players out, is beyond me.
a note about #1 from my perspective
the $2-5 spread limit i play, is usually a $5 bet post flop on all rounds. raising for a free card is worthless, as
you are paying the same if you just called. not to mention if they bet into you on the turn.
it seems a lot more people are using this play. the raise for the free card on the turn. so i've been really
working on defending against this buy 3-betting, or betting into them on the turn.
another overused play i've noticed lately is reraise preflop to get it heads-up. which is fine, if they were
doing it with hands that warranted it. i got 3-bet by a new player last night that had pocket 5's. he got it
heads up and i was good with big slick. he just said, "i was just trying to get it heads up"
nice job on the list
Tosh
I think check raising is a useful tool but not if you sod it up - like in your example. Obviously you need to
take into account where the likely bettor will be and judge whether the check raise will achieve what you
want it to, i.e with a monster hand you want the person to your left to bet so everyone calls and then calls
your second bet. You're definitely right about how overplayed it can be at these LL games.
I played at a table the other day with a guy who would ALWAYS check raise his good hands. If he had a
weak hand or nothing he would nearly always bet. Because of how overplayed it was it became so obvious
what sort of hand he was holding that anyone who noticed this would have an overwhelming advantage over
him. Fortunately noone really paid much attention to this and he normally got away with being so one
tracked.
Maybe #6 should be: Never assume your opponents think about what you are holding.
Homer
Nice post. I'm curious as to which of these five things everyone thinks is the hardest to unlearn. In my
opinion, from easiest to hardest (to unlearn):
3. Playing suited connectors for multiple bets preflop.
One reading of HPFAP or WLLHE should rid you of this habit.
2. Turn check-raise semi-bluffing.
One reading of WLLHE AND a couple of hours in an average Party 2-4 or 3-6 game should get the job
done. Even though we read in starter books that moves like this won't work in low-limit games, we're
tempted to try them out anyway because it's cool and makes you feel like a badass poker player. Plus, it's
easy for beginners to get their hands on HPFAP and misinterpret things. Only after reading about it AND
ignoring the advice given do we learn that we probably shouldn't ignore the advice if we'd like to hang onto
our bankroll.
4. Big offsuit cards and pairs don’t "play well" in big multiway pots.
186
I think this is good advice for beginners to stay away from trouble hands like KTo, QJo, etc. But then we
play for a while and start to incorrectly apply this advice to hands like AK/AQ as well. I think part of it is
that we don't like the idea of raising preflop and check-folding the flop when we miss. "If I'm going to raise
preflop and then check-fold the flop, why the hell don't I just limp preflop?" It takes a while to understand
that it can be correct to raise for value preflop, then to fold on the flop when we miss. It's very easy to
become weak-tight and wait to hit your hand before you start to bet/raise. Same thing with pumping megadraws -- it's real easy to sit back and think "I'll just call and bet if I make my hand. If I don't get there I've
saved a bet."
5. Folding top pair-no kicker at any sign of resistance on the flop.
Again, this is a combination of what we are taught in the books and a natural tendency to play weak-tight.
When met with confrontation many of us just want to get out of the way, and we feel justified in doing so
since "the book" told us it was okay. It takes some experience to learn that:
- People bet and raise with crap
- We don't have to win EVERY time, just often enough that playing on has a greater EV than does folding
- Hand reading is important in determining the likelihood that you have the best hand (taking into account
player knowledge, player's actions during the hand, texture of the board, etc)
I've been playing for around 1.5 years now, and I've only recently started to develop a good feel for when I
should play on with top-pair, no kicker.
1. Raising for a free card.
I think this is the hardest habit to kick of the five. I used to raise for a free card like crazy, no matter
whether it actually had a chance to work (often I would get three-bet then would try to cap for a free card,
only to be bet into again on the turn), or whether the situation called for it or not (I would do so from the
BB with 3c2c when the SB bet into me on a AcKcQd flop with 8 players left to act behind me). Often, I
would raise the flop with a weak made hand, check behind on the turn, and call a bet on the river. Most of
the time the correct play was to either continue betting on the turn, or else fold on the flop. I wasn't playing
tight-aggressive poker (notice the weak-tight theme going on here).
Al_Capone_Junior
I've been playing for around 1.5 years now...
DAMN Homer, you got more posts than Clark, a carpal tunnel maniac, and only 1.5 years? I've been
playing for WAY longer than you and I'm just an old hand....
I used to raise for a free card like crazy...
We must distinguish between raising for a free card and value raising. The free card play may, or may not
work. If there are sufficient players in the hand, value raising can be correct even with no chance of getting
a free card. In my experience, once someone calls one bet on the flop, they rarely fold, even for two more,
so if you get reraised, you just cap for value after everyone just calls anyway. This can be the best play even
if you know you'll get bet into on the turn. If you're trying for the free card, you must be a bit more selective
as to who you try it against. However, you can sometimes achieve both objectives with one play.
I think this is good advice for beginners to stay away from trouble hands like KTo, QJo, etc. But then we
play for a while and start to incorrectly apply this advice to hands like AK/AQ as well.
KTo is basically crapola. AKo is not. Offsuit high cards do differ greatly in their value, and in how they
should be played. (this might be somewhat off topic, but what the heh...) I know Clark's not a big fan of
NOT raising with AK or AQ offsuit, and for many situations, his views are correct. Those times I disagree
with him are for very specific (and actually fairly rare) situations, when post flop counts for more than preflop. I'll not go into it here, but for beginners, the value pre-flop of offsuit high cards can be a confusing
187
subject.
Ahhhh... Top pair, no kicker. A thorny subject, fer sure. The only "general rule" I use is that if it is bet and
raised before it gets to me, I give more thought to folding than if it's just one bet or no bets. Unfortunately,
top pair, no kicker is almost always a BB problem, which means my general rule is fairly useless. Not sure
why I'm bringing this up, but it's an interesting thread.
Suited connectors for multiple bets preflop... There are very few situations where you SHOULD do this. So
Clark is basically right. The most obvious situation where you should is when you only have to call one
more bet from the BB in a multiway pot. Beyond that, you're stretching it....
anatta
I raise the flop on a draw in multi-way pots for value and for the free card. You have a good point that if the
flush card comes, then you will get checked to on the turn. However, players will be more willing to call
your turn bet when they are drawing slim if you pumped the pot on the flop. Guys around here will call with
a gutshot on a flush board if its big enough. Also a lot of players are "one timers" and will take one off (and
2 with your raise) on the flop with anything, but fold the turn regardless. So I like to get them to pay while
they are interested and I have the best of it. The free card is a nice addition. I do try to avoid going to war
on the flop multi-way with baby flush draws.
Louie Landale
[1] Raising for the free card is like playing $10 for a free lunch.
[2] The problem here is that the target needs to be someone who will lay down a pair for the raise.
[4] And I thought I was the only one who believed that. These big cards to GREAT against lots of LOOSE
players; but AQ does poorly against a lot of TIGHT players because [1] they are more likely to make
something, and [2] the ones that don't are more likely to have the cards you need to make a pair.
[6] Manipulating the size of the pot.
[7] Figuring out what you want to do, like raising, then looking for any old excuse to do it.
[8] Failing to bet a questionable hand against a bunch of players.
[9] Getting called on the turn then checking the river for no particular reason.
[10] Under-estimating the ability for loose-players to make loose calls.
[11] Figuring "Tricky" is the routine way to play a hand.
- Louie
Interesting 3-6 Problem
Clarkmeister
Drank some beers and played some fun 3-6 on my Birthday the other day after 6 straight long work days.
Saw the following interesting hand. (I am not involved).
188
3 loose limpers to unknown player (PFR) who raises. One cold caller and Hero defends in BB with Ad3d. 6
see the flop for 12sbs.
Flop: Ah2s2d
Question #1, how do you want to play this flop?
Hero bets. All fold to PRF who raises. Folded back to Hero.
Question #2, what now?
Hero calls. Turn is [Ah2s2d] 3c.
Question #3, what now?
Hero bets, PFR raises again, hero calls.
Question #4, what do you think of the turn play and what is your plan for the river?
Thoughts?
David Ottosen
If I couldn't get away from this hand on the flop in this situation, I'd be very leery of playing it to begin with.
I would check the flop and see what the action was behind me. If checked to PFR and PFR bets, I probably
just fold (I'm worried about getting checkraised with three people in there, especially if I'm drawing to 3
outs and a runner runner).
Having made it to the turn, I would have checkraised the turn and called a 3-bet (followed by check-calling
the river). If not 3-bet, I bet the river.
Stu Pidasso
Question 1
Check raise the flop. This is the best play to get the hand heads up or take it outright.
Question 2
Checkraise the turn, your only beat by AA or 22 or 33, and I would not put 22 or 33 on his range of hands.
If he reraises go into check call mode, if not bet out on the river.
Dynasty
Check raise the flop. This is the best play to get the hand heads up or take it outright.
What hands are you trying to make fold for 2 bets on the flop?
Stu Pidasso
I want them all to fold, especially any hands with aces in them. I want to take this pot down and go to the
next hand.
Bob T.
Flop, I am going to check, and expect that it will get checked to the preflop raiser. If he bets, I will fold if
the coldcaller, calls or raises, if he folds, I will checkraise, and hope that I am playing against a pocket pair,
and not an ace, and try and fold the rest of the hands.
Turn, I am going to three bet the turn, and lead out on the river.
189
River, Given that I bet-called the turn. I guess I am planning on checkraising the river.
KJS
I would bet this flop in order to represent a 2, get information (although many people will always slowplay
trips), and mostly because I would not like it if it is checked to the raiser and he checks a hand like QQ or
KK.
Seeing as no one else called and I was raised (indicating no 2s playing), I would checkraise the turn, only
because I improved to beat AK. If I did not pick up the 3, I would still call down though.
Wow I haven't thought about this for a while!
ResidentParanoid
I'd call the pre-flop raise.
I'd bet and call the flop raise.
I would re-raise the turn. AK, seems likely with an unknown. Maybe AQ. Don't think KK or less would be
this aggressive, but who knows. If it's raised back to me then I worry about AA. I'd call it though.
If I don't get re-raised on turn, I bet the river. Raised again here? Yuk. I guess I call.
Clarkmeister (Results)
A few thoughts:
Stu - I think Dynasty makes a great point. There aren't any aces folding for 2 bets on this flop in a live LL
table. This table in particular, no ace would fold to checkraise pressure. Given the texture of the board, I
don't think a better hand will fold.
At the table I thought that betting was fine, probabaly better than checkraising since KK is really unlikely to
raise here given the board texture. Hero could then fold to a raise.
The problem is that the pot is too big at that point to fold to a raise. Assuming the probable AK, hero has
the 2-2's, 3-3's and 1-A as outs while getting 15-1 on a call. He simply can't bet and fold to a raise.
Going for a checkraise doesn't seem great either because you can't get a better hand to fold, and all worse
hands are drawing nearly dead.
I think check-calling is the preferred option here. I'm surprised no one mentioned it.
On the turn, I think that since he bet the flop, he should checkraise. Since he led, 3-betting seems best. If he
had simply check-called, I would have checkraised the turn.
Result: Hero calls turn. River makes the final board [A223]K. Hero check-calls and loses to AA.
Vehn
Personally I think check calling the flop is terrible. What does that tell you? If you check-call the flop and
its heads-up to the turn, do you fold to a bet? Of course not, and you'll wind up paying off a better ace the
whole way, as you don't know anything. If you checkraise the flop and get 3-bet, you can safely fold on the
turn most of the time and save yourself money, and I think its better than betting out as if someone coldcalls
the checkraise you can pretty much narrow their hand down to Ax or a 2. Yes I realize that this is a "way
ahead or way behind" situation but against most LL players you can save yourself some money here when
behind rather than just ATM'ing it (check calling), and frequently people get married to their big pairs and
will pay you off as well. Of the outs you listed only 3 give him the whole pot against AK, not worth chasing
at 15-1.
190
bad beetz
I would check the flop and see what the action was behind me. If checked to PFR and PFR bets, I probably
just fold
This pot is big.
I also think that the PFR is almost gaurenteed to bet if checked to.
A flop of A22 is much better than say, A26, the paired board allows the PFR's kicker to be slightly less
worrysome, if he does, in fact, have an Ace.
I would check-raise the flop (there is a chance you could win it right there).
I would call a flop three bet, and then check/fold if unimproved.
On the turn, the heros is ahead of all except pocket aces and should show some aggression.
A 3/6 player who will raise the flop with a set of Aces is a rare player, I think that's unlikely
David Ottosen
The pot is big, yes, but if you are up against the most probable hand AK, you have 3 outs to win and at most
4 to tie. The pot is not that big.
I wrote about this situation in a post a few months ago titled "The HEFAP Trap". The pot is big, you call
the flop. The turn misses you and you are heads up and he only has to have KK some small percentage of
the time, etc etc, you call down and much to your non surprise you are shown AK and have to sit there
thinking to yourself "Boy I read all those books and posts and I'm still rolling over the pair of aces, 3 kicker.
Why am I better than these guys again?"
bernie
you should be folding the turn if you miss. that's why youd be better than the other guys...you wouldnt go
into the ,'well, maybe this had IS good' crap....you know by the flop bets that your likely behind, and you
know what you need to hit to continue...in this case, either your kicker or a flush card...anything else, if
there's a bet, youre folding. pretty simple
it's not a trap unless you trap yourself by finding a way to call when you should fold. and many players do
this. then use the 'just in case' way of thinking. BS...you had a good read but altered it because you
committed yourself to the pot on the turn. thus, ignoring your initial read. you also have b-door flush here
dont ya? and KK isnt 3 betting a checkraised flop here. there's no draws hed be punishing. he'd likely be
behind. maybe in a shorthanded game, but not in a full game. playing KK that way on a flop like this with
action youre blowing alot of chips.
just some ideas...
bernie
preflop....call
flop....bet out or c/r
turn...if just called flop raise, id c/r here, if no one raises the flop, im betting out...
river, check call if a K or Q hits..
that said, if i c/r the turn here and get 3 bet, i know i have a little problem and AA could be very likely. only
a maniac would 3 bet a turn c/r here with only AK. i could actually possibly lay it down here at this point,
should it happen.
22 could be there, depending on where the PFR's position is...he may have raised LP with a small pkt pair.
worth considering...
Dynasty
191
Checkraising the flop is a poor decision. What are you trying to accomplish?
Are you trying to drive out the players between you and the PFR (unknown pre-flop raiser) who are very
likely to be drawing dead? What hands are you trying to fold out- medium pairs? suited connectors? offsuit
big cards? The only hands actually worth putting two bet pressure on are 54, 53, and 43 which most low
limit players won't fold if they played them in the first place.
Are you trying to gain information? Most low-limit players will freeze up to a check-raise even if they have
a big Ace. They'll unneccessarily fear that you have a 2 and just call your flop check-raise and subsequent
turn bet. If you think you are going to get 3-bet by AK, you're overestimating the aggessiveness of a typical
unknown low-limit player.
Check-raising this flop looks like it is going to cost you the most money when you are behind and win you
the least, due to few cold calls of your raise, when you are behind.
Dynasty
I want them all to fold, especially any hands with aces in them
Why do you want hands such as KQo, 88, or 65s to fold on this flop?
Do you think somebody who plays A7o is going to fold on a A22 flop?
Clarkmeister
The more I think about this hand, the more I think check-calling is very clearly the correct play, and
checkraising is by far the worst play.
If you checkraise the flop and get 3-bet, you can safely fold on the turn
First, no you can't (see below) and second, why not see the river for the same price?
Dynasty is correct in his posts detailing why checkraising is bad.
Of the outs you listed, only 3 give you the whole pot vs AK, not worth chasing at 15-1
Please elaborate on this. Maybe its just me, but I can still spend the money I win in split pots. The fact is
that against a big ace, you have 3 outs to win, and 1.5 additional outs from the 3 chop cards. Against AQ,
AJs you have even more outs to half the pot. Plus you may have the best hand. Plus you have a backdoor
straight flush draw. 15-1 is an enourmous price on the flop.
As for the turn:
Take this hand for example. 6 people see the flop and you checkraise and only PFR is around and he 3-bets.
We can now assume:
PFR has an ace as one of his cards with a reasonable kicker.
None of the 4 people who folded have either an ace or a deuce.
Pretend the turn is a blank, say an 8.
Now you have 39 unknown cards. 3 of them give a win vs AK and 3 give a chop (for simplicity AA is
cancelled by the times PFR has AQ, AJ, etc). 4.5 outs from the 36 remaining cards. You are making a
misake folding at 8-1.
Clarkmeister
Dave, the pot IS that big.
Checkfolding is simply awful awful awful awful poker.
192
Your rationale of "the odds justify it but I'm not going to play bad and chase" is absolutely wrong. If they
justify it, they justify it. Period. This is why people always complain that they can't beat very loose LL
games with big pots. They try to "play good" and fold when they SHOULD be chasing.
See my response to Vehn for more thoughts on the pot size.
The only thing worse than checkraising is checkfolding. Ugh. At least betting out has some merit in that it
saves you a half bet on the river when facing someone who will bet KK on the river.
David Ottosen
I'm not convinced.
The odds MIGHT justify it at this exact moment. If he has AK, you have 3 to tie and 3 to win, for 4.5 outs
(minus the times he redraws and beats you, AND ignoring that the number of players remaining in the hand
leads me to believe that that last ace has a higher than usual probability of being in someone's hand).
Getting 13-1 on this 4.5/45, I suppose you should be calling, yes? Note I don't take into account the chances
that your hand may be good; I think they are fairly close to the same as your chances to be drawing dead
here, given the action described; for someone to bet KK or QQ into that many players on an ace high flop
requires the kind of cajones I don't see in 3-6 very often.
However, I think you are also neglecting the position you are in, with 3 other players in between you and
the PFR, or as I like to call him in this situation, the checkraise target. Everyone checked to him, and as
everyone expected, he has bet. I think you have to take into account the chance of getting checkraised here
by someone who has you drawing to much fewer outs for more bets.
Further, I don't know how you want to play this hand after the flop if you check call and either get heads up
or have other players in the pot (with no checkraise). The pot will now be 7BB (or more). Assume for one
that the turn card doesn't give you the flush draw (another discussion in and of itself!). If the turn card is a K
or Q, are you going to call down and hope to be shown AJ? Or are you going to check-fold? What if the
turn is a medium card, like a 6 or 7? Check-fold? Boy, I don't like playing poker like that AT ALL, and I
don't think it's good poker either, and the EV reward for this blechy play is not high enough to make me
swallow my bile and do it.
bernie
so every time you go to the turn youre seeing the river? there are times to fold the turn after calling the flop.
basically what your saying here is youd rather not call the preflop raise and get into this predicament. here,
the player has a playable hand on the flop...albeit one of the minimal playable flops, but playable
Vehn
I wrote a long response, decided it was all crap, and will just say I think the BB is all out screwed in this
hand. I will say that while check calling may be right in this case, I just don't like it. I don't like letting
gutshots and backdoor flushes draw cheap in an already large pot. For this reason I prefer checkraising over
betting out. Plus I think you get a better read on if you're ahead or behind by checkraising versus betting
out. Also there is a reasonable chance you'll get out a hand like A5 from a weak player. I think checkraising
slightly increases the odds of him winning/splitting the pot.
Dunno, I think he's screwed no matter what way he plays it and all of his options only end up with him
getting it up different orifices.
Stu Pidasso
Dynasty is correct in saying you do not need to put two bet pressure on the individual players. You (and I)
don't like this ideal because of the schooling effect fish have in the game. Its a good size pot and the priority
should be to win it. The players between you and the PFR do not have enough outs individually to warrant
putting on two bet pressure. Its only when you combine their outs and think of these three individual players
as a single entity (the school of fish)that it begins to make sense to turn on the pressure by check raising.
If I were programming a bot to play a strategy that maximized EV, I think a check calling strategy would be
193
correct here. As a player who enjoys leveraging table image to gain EV in future hands, I would check raise
to increase my chance of winning this particular pot. Also, Its still early in the hand, and can exit if it
becomes apparent that it is I who is drawing dead(or near dead).
Stu Pidasso
Ok, I'm starting to come around to your (Dynasty’s) thinking on this, however, for the rest of this thread I
will play devils advocate. You asked the following
Why do you want hands such as KQo, 88, or 65s to fold on this flop?
Because one of them will beat me 17% of the time.
You also asked
Do you think somebody who plays A7o is going to fold on a A22 flop?
They definately will not fold for 1 small bet. If the preflop raiser has KK and I'm also up against A7o. I win
this pot out right about 11% of the time and tie it 46% of the time. If I get A7o to fold I win the entire pot in
this situation 75% of the time. If my goal is to drag the whole pot, I need to give a reason to A7o to fold his
hand.
bernie
dynasty made some great points. though my thoughts were much like yours. if you can reduce the possible #
of outs against you that could beat you collectively, why not try it. it's kind of looking at your hand
backwards. like seeing the table as one big hand against you. though that example can be exaggerated too
far. if 3 players all had mid pkt pairs, thatd be 6 outs against you to beat you. in c/r and minimizing the
cards that can beat you, you increase your chances of winning...even if youre behind at the moment.
there are merits to c/r, and drawbacks to it, but in looking back, id much choose betting out and calling a
raise. then trying a c/r if my 2nd pair card hits, or check calling if i turn the flush draw. i dont like check
calling the flop here, unless im willing to check fold the turn if i miss. but the problem with check folding
the turn this way, is you never test the LP bettor who could just be betting position twice. which is why id
use the flop, (cheap round) to try and see where i may stand...
interesting thread
Did I do anything wrong here?
Evan
Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (9 handed)
I don't see anyway that I could have won this hand. I just wanted a second opinion. Thanks.
Preflop: Hero is MP3 with T , J .
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, Hero raises, CO calls, Button folds, SB folds, BB calls.
Very tight table, I thought I had a decent chance to take the pot there or get heads up.
Flop: (6.33 SB) 7 , J , 6 (3 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, CO calls, BB calls.
194
Standard, right?
Turn: (4.66 BB) 5 (3 players)
BB checks, Hero checks, CO bets, BB calls, Hero raises, CO calls, BB calls.
I thought this was my last chance to pick up the pot w/o showing my hand. Anyone think I overplayed this
one?
River: (10.66 BB) 7 (3 players)
BB checks, Hero checks, CO bets, BB folds, Hero calls.
I have to call this, right?
Final Pot: 12.66 BB
Results below:
Hero shows Tc Jd (two pair, jacks and sevens).
CO shows 7d 9d (three of a kind, sevens).
Outcome: CO wins 12.66 BB.
Rico Suave
Evan:
I would not have checked the turn....I think you have to bet here. There is no guarantee it will be bet and
giving someone a free card in this spot would be very bad.
papawawa
I really like the turn check-raise. If ever the CO was going to fold, a check-raise would've done it. You
played it solid, tough beat.
MoreWineII
I would have led out on the turn. I don't think your hand was strong enough for a check-raise.
Regardless, you weren't going to get rid of CO.
TxSteve
I'll take a quick shot before the paramedics get here.
raising TJ off in mp is VERY loose i think...especially loose if the table is "very tight" are you saying you
were attempting a blind steal from MP?
you were hoping to get it heads up...i don't believe JT is a good hand to play heads up...i think you want a
larger field.
I think many people would fold JToff in MP
flop: yes, i think you have to bet your top pair now
i think the CO played sort of strangely too, i'm not positive i would raise my TP avg kicker here, but i've got
aggression issues
on the river, you have to call..with 10bb in the pot and only 1 opponent
in my experience...this hand is what happens a lot when i decide to play mediocre PF hands
lil'
Even at a tight table, I wait for a better hand than J-10o to raise with from MP.
195
The standard play here is to bet the turn with top pair. I'm not sure why you checked. Were you always
planning a check raise? You do not want this checked through, and with only one other opponent left to act
it might very well be checked around.
You again check the river with top pair, and I'm not sure why.
Randy Burgess
I don't like the preflop raise with JT. I'd prefer hands that have a better chance of winning unimproved if a
blind calls and I'm headup. Ax or even Kx is better than JT.
Don't like your turn check-raise with such a weak hand and this particular turn card.
Don't agree you "have" to call on the river. If you have a good feel for the cutoff, you may be able to fold
despite the pot size. The action fits neatly with that of a loose-passive player who has gotten additional
reason to like his hand despite your turn raise. If you feel you can't exercise this degree of judgement than
of course a call is better.
As for arguments by some that you should have gone ahead and bet the river with your fearsome top pair,
Ten kicker, this is over-valuing a rather weak top pair in a rather iffy situation. Check-calling is the better
play.
sthief09
raising preflop with that is going to hurt you. if it was suited, I'd have no problem. but unsuited that's too
early to be raising with it.
I don't understand why you didn't bet, bet, bet. your hands seems pretty weak to check-raise the turn with,
unless CO was the type to autobet (getting it checked through on the turn would be bad). and once you get
called on your turn check-raise and not 3-bet, why wouldn't you bet the turn? do you really think it's THAT
probable that CO has a 7? that's ridiculous. so I agree with the flop bet, but that's about it. you alternated
between overplaying (preflop and turn) and underplaying (river) your hand.
you desperately tried to push them off the turn, but the fact of the matter is checking is going to get it
checked through more than it's going to make people fold to your raise. in games like these, you're going to
have to show down the best hand. you can't expect to push people off their hands.
Clarkmeister
As for arguments by some that you should have gone ahead and bet the river with your fearsome top pair,
Ten kicker, this is over-valuing a rather weak top pair in a rather iffy situation. Check-calling is the better
play.
Randy, I don't mean to pick on you, but check-calling here is really bad advice. His opponent backed down
on the turn when checkraised. If he had a real hand on that board he would almost certainly 3-bet. So the
only hand that will raise us on the river is specifically a hand with a 7 in it. That rare occurance isn't nearly
enough to not value bet the river here. Just what hands do you think are going to induce a bluff from after
you've taken the raise-bet-checkraise line on the previous 3 streets? OTOH they will still call you with all
sorts of paired hands. Failing to bet the river here is a big big leak.
MarkD
This is the first I have seen of this thread but are you saying that the turn check raise is the best play? (I
know that you didn't address this in your post and you are commenting simply on the river play, but by not
commenting on the turn CR I infer that you don't mind it.) I would be afraid of the hand getting checked
through on a draw heavy board and would be much more inclined to simply bet my hand.
I would of course follow up with an easy river value bet, but the turn check raise doesn't feel right to me
here. Not because I don't think my hand is good, but because I think that turn will get checked through.
196
Clarkmeister
Mark,
I'd just bet the turn. I merely wanted to address Randy's point about the river since it is a far more frequent
and hence more costly error. If the turn checkraise is a mistake, in the long run it's not going to cost that
much. I obviously agree with you that it's an easy river bet.
Randy Burgess
You can pick on me all you want! I feel somewhat like a first-grader to whom Einstein has consented to
explain addition and subtraction...
Even so, I don't agree with many of your assumptions here. For one thing, the cutoff didn't "back down" on
the turn--that is your own interpretation of his action. A call here fits the mentality of a significant number
of loose-passive players at these limits.
This sort of player can have a wide range of hands that they'll play fairly passively but that still beat our
hero, e.g. two small pair, a Jack with a Queen kicker, etc. These hands/players will be afraid our hero has a
bigger hand based on the preflop raise. They're not thinking in terms of aggression although a protoClarkmeister would be.
Simply put, your assumption that a "real hand" would always 3-bet is not correct. And once that assumption
is falsified, then the river situation changes. There is a point where the balance shifts from "bet the probably
best hand" to "check the questionable hand." I would have just bet the turn and not check-raised, but once
information becomes available it should be used. To me this is basic hand-reading, to you it's weak-tight.
I know you and Ed Miller are working hard at driving home various themes on this forum, but sometimes I
have to wonder at their supposed universality. Indeed I often feel there is a great deal that gets left out.
Ed Miller
Randy,
On the river, checking behind when LAST TO ACT is very different than checking with players yet to act. I
think you have the two confused a little bit.
Randy Burgess
I don't think I've got them confused at all.
However, you obviously do. Moreover your wording suggests there is something blindingly obvious that
I'm missing, which you would helpfully point out except that pity is holding you back. Don't worry - this
may just be one of my extra-stupid days. Go ahead and clue me in.
Ed Miller
Here's the point. You think the guy behind you didn't "back down" because you think he might be just too
timid to 3-bet. Fine. The point is... in that case, betting the river and check-calling will achieve almost
exactly the same result. So bringing up that possibility does not help you decide whether to bet or to checkcall.
The real questions are:
1. How likely is it that someone has a seven?
2. How likely is it that someone had a big hand on the turn, but for some reason decided to sandbag it to the
river?
3. How likely are my opponents to pay off with worse hands?
It doesn't really matter how often the player behind you has a strong hand that he was too timid to 3-bet. If
he was too timid on the turn, he'll be too timid again on the river.
197
Clarkmeister
I don't agree with many of your assumptions here. For one thing, the cutoff didn't "back down" on the
turn--that is your own interpretation of his action. A call here fits the mentality of a significant number of
loose-passive players at these limits.
That's fine. But he'll still bet the ones that beat us once we check the river, and he's proven he won't raise, so
we have a net-net of zero when we were beat on the turn and are still beat on the river.
This sort of player can have a wide range of hands that they'll play fairly passively but that still beat our
hero, e.g. two small pair, a Jack with a Queen kicker, etc.
Well, two small pair may have been counterfieted. And worrying about a bigger kicker in this spot is
frankly very scared. Other than that there are still tons of hands we beat. Look, we checked and the button
bet in a big pot. Big deal. He's bluffing, or putting us on big cards. It's not like his bet is indictative of a big
hand. He didn't raise us on the turn, he *bet* when checked to. It's indicative of specifically one pair,
possibly even less. The fact that he called our checkraise is meaningless, other than to let us know he
doesn't have a monster (set or straight). It means he's got the same garbage that he would have called one
bet with on the turn in the first place. This is a LL game where people flat-out don't fold, especially in a spot
like this where it "feels like they are being muscled out of a pot".
Simply put, your assumption that a "real hand" would always 3-bet is not correct.
I'd consider a real hand in this case to be 2 pair or better. In an online 3-6 game the players who *won't* 3bet here with 2 pair are few and far between. In any instance, it's a wash as I mentioned above and as Ed
referenced in his post. They won't raise the river either and will certainly bet QJ or better when checked to.
And once that assumption is falsified, then the river situation changes. There is a point where the balance
shifts from "bet the probably best hand" to "check the questionable hand." I would have just bet the turn
and not check-raised, but once information becomes available it should be used. To me this is basic handreading, to you it's weak-tight.
So let me get this straight. Our hand went from "probable best hand" to "questionable hand" because the
button bet the turn in a big pot when a preflop raiser checked? Or was it when the 3-6 online player *called*
(not 3-bet) a turn checkraise? Just what piece of "information" became available that made you suddenly
think your top pair was a significant dog? I'd contend that the only hands you are losing to are KJ, QJ and
hands that spiked a 7. You are ahead of everything else.
But all of this ignores the fact that even if you are correct that you are now a dog to have the best hand, you
still must bet! You are almost certainly a far far bigger dog when you check and are faced with a bet. This
is "straight out of TOP" type of stuff, and is especially applicable to LL and especially online games.
Randy Burgess
But all of this ignores the fact that even if you are correct that you are now a dog to have the best hand,
you still must bet! You are almost certainly a far far bigger dog when you check and are faced with a bet.
This is "straight out of TOP" type of stuff, and is especially applicable to LL and especially online games.
Well, I think I've managed to make so many dumb statements in a row that I've finally tripped you up, if
only in terms of wording.
If we somehow "knew" (TOP-wise) that we were the likely dog on the river, betting would have to be
negative expectation since we have no chance of folding our loose opponent. Even when he just calls and
doesn't raise we're still negative.
Your real point is that we will be winning far too often in these circumstances to lose a bet by checking. I
can't comment further (and anyway this thread is pretty well tapped out) except to say I will bear what you
say in mind and see how it fits into my experience going forward. Thanks for your patience.
198
Clarkmeister (Everyone read this)
No tripping up at all, what I said is correct. You still aren't getting it. As you mentioned in one of your first
posts in this thread, you "must" call if you check. But very few people will be bluffing into us after this
action, likely very close to what the pot is laying us. So even if we knew we were a dog by betting, we
still must bet because we are even more of a dog if we check and call. Looking at the river bet in
isolation, you are taking one negative EV proposition in lieu of an even more negative EV proposition
because of the size of the pot. This happens all the time on the river when out of position.
This is really a critical river concept. It's discussed in TOP, but that can be a bit much to wade through at
times. However it's a concept that needs to be understood and applied all the time. I really encourage
everyone to read this thread.
Ed Miller
This is really a critical river concept. It's discussed in TOP, but that can be a bit much to wade through at
times.
I think it's presented clearly on p. 211 of TOP.
Clarkmeister
I meant that *TOP* was difficult to wade through.
AceHigh
If we somehow "knew" (TOP-wise) that we were the likely dog on the river, betting would have to be
negative expectation since we have no chance of folding our loose opponent. Even when he just calls and
doesn't raise we're still negative.
Even if betting has a negative expection, it can still be a better play than checking.
Example assume you lose 60% of the time and your opponent will bet 75% of the time you check, but rarely
raise your bet.
EV(betting) = .4 * 1BB (win) - .6 * 1BB (lose) = -.2 BB
EV(checking) = .25 * 0BB (check/check) + .15 * 1BB (win when he bets) - .6 1BB (lose when he bets) =
-.45 BB
Both plays have a negative expectation, but betting is the .25BB better play because you collect all the
times you are ahead, where checking you rarely collect when you are ahead, but must always call when
behind.
DMBFan23
isnt this assuming that he will only check if behind? I notice that the percentage for (win when he bets) +
(check/check) adds up to the times you are ahead. wont he (even occasionally) check the winning hand? I
think the result is the same, I'm just checking the thought process here.
AceHigh
I simplified the equation to make it easier to understand. I also took out raises and folds on the river for the
same reasons.
wont he (even occasionally) check the winning hand?
Maybe. Of course all assumptions depend on your opponent. Against a passive enough opponent you could
always fold to a river bet.
The important concept is that your opponent is often going to bet when ahead and check when behind.
199
2-4 Hand
Clarkmeister
I thought this hand might be of interest to the forum. 2-4 online.
4 limpers to me in the SB with AsKs. I raise, BB folds and everyone else calls. 4.5BBs and 4 players.
Flop: Qs 5h 6h. I bet, EP calls, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, CO raises, I call, EP calls. 7.5BBs and 3 players.
Turn: 2c. I check, EP checks, CO bets, I raise, EP folds, CO calls.
River: 5d. I check, CO checks, MHIG.
arkady
Clark,
What was the thought process on the turn, how were you so sure that he was on a draw?
Rico Suave
200
Clarkmeister:
I have to admit, I would find it hard to play it this way with no reads. CO could easily be on a draw, but
couldn't he play a Q this way? You have to fold if he bets this river, right?
sfer
Clark, do you call a river bet?
AviD
What did you have him on that raising the turn seemed like a good idea? Unless you were trying to push EP
out, which I wouldn't be worried about...you aren't afraid of overs and raising gives him around 5:1 odds to
draw to 4:1 flush. Why not keep him in?
I'd assume you were hoping EP and CO would fold to your turn CR there and take it down...although that is
pretty unlikely in a 2/4 game. (at least for CO "who already has 1BB in" mentality)
River play, as I think about it seems good. He isn't going to call a river bet with a busted drawing hand but it
may induce a bluff from a player knowing he can only win on the river if he bets it and you fold. Although
most 2/4 players won't bet here without something, they aren't thinking about what you are thinking and will
perceive your turn CR as a strong move with a big hand. Betting AK here seems futile as either you are way
ahead with your overs to a busted draw that won't call or way behind to just about anything else that will
call or raise the river bet.
The question is...would you call his river bet when checked to after he called your turn CR?
lunchmeat
I don't understand the turn check/raise. Unless I know the CO will bet with anything in this spot and is
aggressive enough to raise with a real hand on the flop, then I wouldn't make this play. Without that
information, raising to knock out EP does not appear to be +EV.
Please explain your rationale for this move.
Michael Davis
With this draw heavy board, Clarkmeister believes there is a reasonable chance the CO is drawing. He
doesn't know this. The cutoff could have a real hand, too. But Clarkmeister is justifiably worried that EP has
him beat.
If indeed CO is on a draw and Clarkmeister can push EP out of the pot, he has now turned ace high into the
best hand in a reasonably large pot.
Clarkmeister
I knew nothing about my opponent. I do know that most players, especially online, will raise that flop both
with draws and with made hands. He could have had either one.
PokerNoob
CO is the poster child for "take the free card when given, particularly by a preflop raiser". Well played
Clark. This is why you are you and we is us.
Clarkmeister
how were you so sure that he was on a draw?
I wasn't *so* sure. I just thought that it was a reasonable possibility. I don't need to be anywhere near 100%
sure to make this play.
arkady
Gutsy against an unknown.
201
I suppose the idea being, that there is some chance that he is on a str8 or flush draw and might fold - giving
you the incentive to do it.
I just find the move particularly daring, because you are out of position. What would you do if he bet the
river?
DMBFan23
Clark,
the CR on the turn, was that to get out EP, or were you representing something to CO? do you fold to CO's
three bet on the turn? (I would). do you call a river bet? (I would). <--- I hope I got at least one of those
right
ElSapo
Hey Clark... interesting hand, thanks for posting it. Not knowing anything about your opponenent, and
given that most players would play a queen and a draw in much the same manner...
But would they? Unless it's for value, most players on a draw are checking behind on the turn here with two
more opponents. I don't think I like the turn raise, as you're behind at least one opponent (I'm guessing).
You have ace-high.
How certain do you need to be he's on a draw? Ok, you can't be certain, but what kind of probability do you
need here? If I recall, pot was 7-8 BB when you popped the turn. I'd guess he'll be on a draw about 1-in-4
times? Maybe more, who knows, I'm throwing that out. What I mean is, was this just a "hey, let's raise it and
see if it works" play, or is this a calculated move based on pot size v the probability he's drawing?
I don't see a queen folding here, not at Party 2/4, so you're gambling to eliminate the guy in the middle if he
has less. And the raiser still has to miss his draw and not hit his cards for a pair (which could be 3 outs or 6,
depending on his hand).
Sorry to ramble. I don't think I like the turn raise too much. Too many things have to happen for it to work
out.
Also, unless I missed it, you've yet to answer the "call a river bet" question. Which, if he's the kind of
opponent to bet his draw into two players, he might just bet the river unimproved. Though doing that when
he just got checkraised is tough.
And then you have to call the river unimproved?
You've created a big pot in that spot against a guy who's showing a fair amount of strength. Looks to me
like you managed to create a big pot with ace-high and now might just have to call. All based on the
probability that he's on a draw, continued to bet his draw on the turn, and desperation-bet on the end.
I see the reasoning of cleaning up outs if perhaps you're in a reverse-domination situation with either guy,
like they have AX, but still...
If it's good, I'd love some more explanation. Just trying to learn...
AceHigh
I wouldn't bet the flop, I would check/raise.
Michael Davis
Quite often, Clark may have up to 6 outs even if it turns out he is beaten. An opponent would have to be
borderline insane to threebet here with QJ.
202
Saborion
I wasn't *so* sure. I just thought that it was a reasonable possibility. I don't need to be anywhere near
100% sure to make this play.
That is true. But do they often fire again on the turn with a draw against 2 players, one of them being the
PFR, when they have the option to go for a free card?
Saborion
Why did you bet the flop?
Against 4 opponents you're not likely to have the best hand anymore, are you? Granted, someone with a
better hand might fold, but anyone with a Q won't, and there's a possible flush and straight draw out there.
Clarkmeister
But do they often fire again on the turn with a draw against 2 players, one of them being the PFR, when
they have the option to go for a free card?
On the internet? Of course they do. Heck, I had to beg people on this forum to check the turn with a draw in
a thread the other day.
To address other questions, I definitely call the river. However, it's really not that important since all but the
strongest players will be checking behind unless they have a monster, which they don't, or they'd have 3-bet
the turn.
I want to address this thread more, because I really think checkraising the turn here is important, but
frankly, I'm too tired to do it justice. Basically, you have a great shot of having the lead. You can't allow the
3rd player with either a weak made hand or 6 outs to call. Even if you are behind to a pair, you have 6 outs
against the CO a huge % of the time.
The pot size dictates that you can't fold, so investing this incremental bet to maximize your chances of
winning the pot is absolutely essential. You can fold a better hand if you are behind, you could easily have
the best hand, but any non-dominated hand has at least 6 outs to beat you. The CO is more likely than not to
be drawing. This is an easy investment of an incremental bet that simply must be made. Just calling here in
an 8.5BB pot is terrible.
I hope to expound some more, but I wanted to get something out here for discussion because this is a
critical type of play. There is discussion on this type of concept in TOP where you are less than 50% sure
you have the best hand, but raising still becomes the correct play because of the chances to get it headsup
and the size of the pot.
Clarkmeister
I bet the flop for a few reasons.
1. I won't be folding, even for 2 bets cold on this flop.
2. It is very disjointed and I have a high likelihood of getting many people to fold.
3. My opponents are more readable if I keep betting than if I overrepresent my hand be checking and
raising.
Checking and folding is out of the question. Checking and calling definitely inferior to betting in this spot.
Saborion
1. I won't be folding, even for 2 bets cold on this flop.
That might be 7.5 + 1 + 2 = 10.5 to you. You call getting 5:1 from the pot? Possible 6 outs + 1 for the
backdoor flush + maybe something for a backdoor straight. Then add possible implied odds? What about
203
reverse implied odds?
Maybe it doesn't matter since you most likely won't be faced with a raise and re-raise behind you if you bet
out. Just curious about that statement since I'm a weak post.
3. My opponents are more readable if I keep betting than if I overrepresent my hand be checking and
raising.
That might be true.
If we're going to call, it's better to bet, I agree. I wouldn't be sure I wanted to call though, since
1: even if we hit an A or K, that might give someone two pair
2: if someone has a flush-draw, we
a) have less clean A and/or K outs
b) they'll hit their flush one time out of three
3: someone might have a straight draw (not too worried about that, but combined with the possible flush
draw, it worries me a bit)
4: someone might have two pair or better, making us draw almost dead.
I thought we had to improve to win this pot, clearly I was wrong. I'm way too weak post it appears.
Hopefully TTH will help me get a better idea of how good/bad shape a hand like As Ks is in a spot like that.
It seems as though I'm way too worried about things when playing, and I strongly suspect overcoming that
will have a great impact on my win rate.
Saborion
Well, if there's a reasonable chance that the turn bettor is on a draw, then check-raising is clearly better than
simply calling. I didn't expect so many people to bet their draws when they can get a free card though.
Learned something new today too, making it a good day.
Clarkmeister
If I posted it from the CO's perspective with a draw, I guarantee you people here would say "bet, SB might
fold AK". In fact, it's so obvious that "hero" here might have AK that almost any player willing to raise the
flop with a draw in last position is going to take another stab on the turn. I mean....cmon, I have logged
many internet hours in the past, I read your guys' posts here, I watch others play on the internet all the time.
All I know is that I don't see a whole lot of free cards being taken on the turn when a blank comes.
Ed Miller
Guys, this is not a joke or "blowing off steam." This is a correct play that YOU GUYS SHOULD BE
MAKING. If you think it's a "blowing off steam" play, then you should pay a LOT of attention to the
thinking in this thread.
About a month ago, J. A. Sucker suggested that I include a hand example in the book that was VERY
similar to this one (and included raising the turn with unimproved AK). I thought it was a great idea, but
unfortunately the book was already too far along to add that much new content.
This thread really makes me wish that I had gotten it in there...
Ed Miller
Clark, do you call a river bet?
You guys seem to think this is the interesting part of the hand. It's not! The interesting part is the play on the
turn... which has ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to do with whether you would call a bet on the river.
Who cares if you call a bet on the river? First of all, very few people will actually BET this river. Second of
all, it's a big pot and you have a bluff-catcher. Calling really can't be too big a mistake.
204
I think people on this forum suffer from what David called Tommy Angeloitis. Now I'm not sure the name
is fair, but the problem is very real... you guys are hesitant to play marginal hands in spots that are profitable
but uncomfortable. Yes, you aren't thrilled that you have unimproved ace-king in a big pot, but that's what
you got, and you have to make the best play with it. It seems that some of you don't want to make the
correct play because it MIGHT (note caps) leave you with a "tough" river decision.
Who cares! If the guy bets the river... congratulations to him. He might win an extra bet from you. Most
players don't play well enough to bet there, and those that do... well, they play goot! But you can't be
playing meekly with AK just because uncomfortable things might happen.
(Note that this post is now becoming more general in scope.)
I don't know how many of you read Rolf Slotboom's two part extravaganza on playing AK from the small
blind, but he basically barfed Tommy Angeloitis all over the page. He wants to fold AK to a raise from the
small blind because (a paraphrase of his article), "What if you miss? Won't that suck? You will have acehigh out of position."
Well yes, sometimes you miss and have ace-high out of position. That is often an unpleasant situation (when
your opponent doesn't run in fear on the flop since you 3-bet him from the small blind with AK... which
they do like at least a third of the time anyway). But just because something is DIFFICULT or
UNCOMFORTABLE does not mean it is UNPROFITABLE. Furthermore, "making the hand easier to
play," "finding out where you're at," and "avoiding a tough decision," are VERY RARELY VALID
EXCUSES FOR MAKING ANY PLAY IN LIMIT HOLD 'EM. It's nonsense. Stop thinking like this, guys.
Don't miss river bets because, "What if this guy who has never bluff-raised anyone in his life decides to
throw that all out the window and pull a world class play on me this hand?" Don't miss KEY turn checkraises because, "What if he bets the river?" Who !@#$ing cares.
That is all.
Ulysses
Don't miss KEY turn check-raises because, "What if he bets the river?" Who !@#$ing cares.
That is all.
Whoa. You're like some kinda tough bad-ass now. I didn't even include all the ALL CAPS stuff. Awesome.
El Diablo is proud of young Ed.
Ed Miller
Whoa. You're like some kinda tough bad-ass now. I didn't even include all the ALL CAPS stuff. Awesome.
El Diablo is proud of young Ed.
I RULE!
Saborion
I believe you. I didn't know this though.
In fact, it's so obvious that "hero" here might have AK that almost any player willing to raise the flop with
a draw in last position is going to take another stab on the turn.
Well, shouldn't this be true for live games as well then?
Clarkmeister
of course. I just like to emphasize the online part since it seems over 90% of the posters here play the
majority of their poker online.
205
MarkD
Against a lot of opponents that have this obvious AK taking another stab on the turn instead of the free card
is often correct.
I'm guilty of not taking enough free cards, but I also think firing that second barrel is important at times.
Clarkmeister
Against a lot of opponents that have this obvious AK taking another stab on the turn instead of the free
card is often correct.
Especially against like half this forum. I promise that had I asked "raise,call or fold" on the turn for this that
there would have been a long line in the "fold" camp.
MarkD
Clark... I feel bad because I don't think I have this checkraise in me. It's days like this where I realize just
how bad I am (relatively speaking) and it's a bit depressing.
I see the logic of it but I'm not sure I ever would have came up with it and that's slightly depressing.
cnfuzzd
Hum, i see the value in checkraising the turn, in fact, it looks like a moment of pure brilliance to this very
mediocre player. However, once you have c/r the turn, and dont get the three bet, why wouldnt you bet the
river. You know your opponent isnt terrible proud of their hand, and that they have conceeded you might
have some strength. So you either value bet your hand, or make a bluff against an opponent who has
virtually screamed "weak hand". Wouldn't this bluff work often enough to make it profitable? Plus, not
showing down your AK would mean they would never find out what you c/r'ed them with.
arkady
Yikes, ouch Ed! I dont think anyone suggested that this is an incorrect play, my point was simply that it
seemed overly aggressive against an unknown player out of position.
Seems like Clark just assumes that everyone on the internet is psychotic and seems to be answering with his
own dose of aggression. Yet it was my understanding that the best antidote for such behavior is to do the
opposite.
On an unrelated note, you should have put the example in the book - no doubt about that.
Clarkmeister
Seems like Clark just assumes that everyone on the internet is psychotic and seems to be answering with
his own dose of aggression.
No, this isn't some random escalation of hostilities.
Again:
1. It is clearly correct to call the turn in this 8.5BB pot.
2. Ultra conservatively I'd guess we have at LEAST a 20% chance of being in front of the CO.
3. We have a high chance of folding out the rest of the field since it is just a single opponent who has shown
no strength at all.
These factors make throwing 2 bets into the pot instead of 1 the absolutely correct play. Frankly, I'd put our
chances of being in front of the CO at over 40%.
If you really think that CO has a queen, set or two pair more than 4x as often as he has a draw then I don't
care if you are playing internet or live, you are playing way too scared. I'm not assuming anyone is playin
psychotic at all. I'm assuming that they are playing poker .
206
Nate tha’ Great Section
Nate is awesome. It’s hard to say much else. A lot of threads he starts in the General and Small Stakes
forums are some of the most informative you will find on all of 2+2. Everything he says is meant to make a
point, and the analysis he offers up in these threads is amazing.
You can also see some great responses from Peter Rus in these threads. Peter is a long time poster and
great player, and he always gives some great advice. I haven’t seen him post much recently, which is a
shame, but I know he’s still playing the 30/60 on Party, and winning.
If you ask me, this is probably the best section in this entire document. It certainly rivals the Ed Miller
section if it’s not better. This section contains everything from a discussion on how to showdown underpair
hands, using hand ranges to make decisions, betting out on a missed flop, and 2 preflop threads, that will
change the way you think about poker. The best thread, “You Play Too Tight,” also has a really good
discussion about mixing up your play between TT and GregJ.
Also, if you don’t get enough of Nate on 2+2 and in this collection, go check out Baseball Prospectus,
which he writes for when he’s not killing the high stakes games, or teaching 2+2ers.
207
You Play Too Tight
Nate tha' Great
Hi, all. This is a public service announcement intended mainly for players in the Shorthanded and Small
Stakes forums. Most of the folks in the Mid/High forum are exempt. I don't know about the Microlimits
forum since I don't read it regularly, but I wouldn't be surprised if it applied to many of the posters there
too.
You're playing too tight before the flop. You should not be putting money in just 15% of the time in a 10handed game. You sure as bloody hell should not be putting in money just 19% of the time in 6-handed
game. You should be defending your blinds more. You should be stealing more. You shouldn't be looking
for excuses to fold your good hands before the flop; you should be looking for excuses to play them. I find
myself saying this in response to more and more hand posts so I'm posting this in order to save myself some
time in the future.
I don't know whether this is some sort of trend or not, or whether it's always been going on and I just haven't
noticed it as much. In any event, I think it's caused by some combination of three things:
1) The Ray Zee factor. Sadly, I can't seem to find Ray Zee's seminal essay on the evolution of a poker
player. But its main point is that a lot of developing players go through a phase in which they play too tight.
This is only natural, since the primary sin of most bad poker players is to play too loose. And, indeed,
playing too loose is usually going to be a lot more harmful to you than playing too tight. But playing too
208
tight is still going to cost you a lot of value, especially against poor opposition whom you can outplay after
the flop. I estimated in a recent post in the Mid/High forum that I've made about $6,500 in the past month
from playing hands that an overtight player might fold. This translates to about 0.60 BB/100 given the
limits and the number of hands that I'm playing. I hope you don't think this that amount of profit is trivial.
I also hope you don't think that this is a gross overestimate. While I've been running pretty well, it's easy to
see how these numbers are well within the realm of possibility. If you're playing about 15% of your hands
before the flop when you should be playing about 20%, that means that you're folding 5 hands per 100 that
you should be playing. How much profit is that costing you? A good educated guesstimate is between .10
and .15 BB per additional hand folded. At that rate, five incorrect folds per one hundred result in a sacrifice
of between .50 and .75 BB/100 in your earn rate.
Disclaimer: Ray Zee also notes that the overtight phase is usually proceeded by a loose aggressive phase. I
have been through my loose aggressive phase and both me and my bankroll have survived it. In fact, it was
pretty fun.
2) The multitabling factor. Let's face it: multitabling online poker games is a very good way to make money.
I four-table, and should be adding a fifth table soon. A lot of people on here manage to play six or eight or
even more tables at once, and many of them play them very well.
It is natural when you're multitabling to play somewhat fewer hands. It may even be +EV. If I can make a
couple of cents by defending my blind with 76o when I'm fully attending to it, but I see that I've just gotten
AA on my 30/60 table, I'm probably doing both of the hands justice by mucking the loose blind defense.
However, I think some of you are overcompensating. You’re multitabling and making pretty good money
doing it by being a rock-peddler, and you don't see much reason to change. But you're not merely sacrificing
*small* EV plays in order to maintain your attention span and your sanity; you're probably sacrificing some
fairly large EV plays as well. What's worse, being a rock-peddler may preclude you from future profits by
preventing you developing a sense for how to play your more marginal sorts of hands as well as you could.
For what it's worth, I was a lot more eager to move up in limits than to move up in the number of tables that
I was playing, and I think this made leaps and bounds worth of difference in the rate at which my game
improved.
3) The Ed Miller factor. There seems to be an inverse relationship between weak-tight play and Ed Miller
strategy posts. Ed isn't posting as much these days. Ergo...
-Nate
Greg J
3) The Ed Miller factor. There seems to be an inverse relationship between weak-tight play and Ed Miller
strategy posts. Ed isn't posting as much these days.
The last post I saw from Ed said that people on the SS and Micro forum are making recomendations that are
too aggressive. I am not trying to twist your argument, or make this a you against Ed thing, which it clearly
isn't... just a thought is all. It does, however, confuse the censored out of me, esp as I am one of those guys
that has a vpip of ~15. Of course that in itself doesn't make one weak.
This is good food for thought though. I think a lot of people have a tendency to think preflop play is not that
important -- "it's postflop play where money is made." I don't think this is necessarily true, and seems to me
to be a perversion of what Miller and co pointed out in SSHE, which is that what turns a player from
beating the game to crushing it is how he or she plays from the flop on.
Nice post Nate. Thanks for the thoughts. I'm not sure how much I agree with all you wrote, but I will keep
and open mind as I read other responces. Thanks for taking to time to spell out an intersting and compelling
209
argument.
Michael Davis
What about the fact that I can't turn a profit with as many hands as you can?
Nate tha' Great
Michael,
You play pretty well.
I took a look at some of the EV numbers that Pokerroom keeps, which can be found here:
http://teamfu.freeshell.org/poker_hands.html
Now, this is a sloppy way of estimating things, but the stats reveal that roughly the first 20% of hands are
profitable. If you go down through KTo on the chart in that link, which shows a grand old profit of +0.01
BB per hand ... that works out to 20.4% of all hands.
But the situation is even more favorable than that, since these stats are from average players. The average
player loses a tiny bit of money with 87s because he plays it in the wrong spots ... a better-than-average
player should be able to play that hand for a profit, both because he picks and chooses his preflop spots, and
because he plays it better than an average player would after the flop.
It wouldn't surprise me if the truly optimum VPIP was something like 22% or 23% in a 10-handed game for
a really good player in a game with no tip and a proportionately small rake. It might even be as high as 25%
for a true expert who knew his opposition well and was comfortable working with a somewhat loose table
image. I'm at 19%, and I'm not really losing money with any major hand groupings ... in fact they're all
healthily ahead of par, when in theory I should be scraping the barrel down to hands that make me just a
penny when I play them.
Michael Davis
Good response.
One thing, however, come to mind: First, it could be extremely dangerous to exhort hordes of new players
to start playing many more hands. Playing more hands naturally puts you in a ton more tough spots, but it
also indirectly creates more tough spots when you have hands, as having a higher than normal VP$IP will
cause players to react differently against you in certain situations. So postflop, you're talking about possibly
tripling the number of tough situations you're putting players in who may not be able to handle them.
I think it is significant that you have come to this development in your game through extensive trial and
error. There are unquestionably spots to bleed small edges that players are not recognizing or taking
advantage of, but if they start flailing blindly in an effort to pick up their numbers, they may not accurately
assess the profitability of marginal situations. This can only come with experience, hard examination of
numbers, and the recommendations of those you know to be better than you.
bobbyi
I took a look at some of the EV numbers that Pokerroom keeps, which can be found here:
http://teamfu.freeshell.org/poker_hands.html
Now, this is a sloppy way of estimating things, but the stats reveal that roughly the first 20% of hands are
profitable. If you go down through KTo on the chart in that link, which shows a grand old profit of +0.01
BB per hand ... that works out to 20.4% of all hands.
I think the main thing we learn from that chart is that the whole lower end of the spectrum of profitable
hands is only profitable by a very small amount. The difference in your win rate by playing the top 20% of
210
hands vs. the top 15% is going to be very small. The difference in your variance is going to be huge. I think
it is essentially a question of why you play poker. A lot of people like games and intellectual challenges and
if you play poker as a sort of game to prove who clever you are by being able to play that extra 5% of hands
for an extremely marginal profit, then that's cool. You can go ahead and play those extra hands and marvel
smugly at how much beter you are than those weak-tight rocks who fold extremely marginal hands and thus
don't understand how to really play poker. On the other hand, some people play poker primarily to make
money. In that case, the extra variance from playing tons of marginal hands can easily mean that you have
to play one level lower than you would be playing if you were not bothering with so many marginal hands,
and that means making a lot less per hour in dollars, even though you are sqeezing out an extra .2 BB/ hr if
you measure in bets. For those people, sitting in a $10/20 playing 20% of hands rather than in a $20/40
playing 15% is probably not the way to go. There is no right and wrong approach. It's just about what your
goals are.
Evan
There is no way the extra variance from these hands will have a material affect on the required bankroll to
jump from 10/20 to 20/40. Cutting out these hands would probably allow a 10/20 player to play 11/22.
Lawrence Ng
Hi Nate,
Guess I will be the one who plays devil advocate here.
Just so you know Nate, I have a lot of respect for your posts and this one is no different.
The advice you give here is a double edged sword for a lot of players making this transition from the semi
weak-tight phase.
From what I see in live card games amongst some of the more solid tight players, it's not so much that
players fail to defend their blind often enough or play a higher percentage of hands pre-flop. For the most
part people do. The problem exists mostly with the following two things:
1. These players lack sufficient knowledge/skill to play post flop. What's more they lack skill to play post
flop against different types of opponents.
2. They lack proper post-flop aggression. While aggressive play is more or less they norm, it's not just about
being aggressive, but when to be aggressive in certain situations.
I estimated in a recent post in the Mid/High forum that I've made about $6,500 in the past month from
playing hands that an overtight player might fold. This translates to about 0.60 BB/100 given the limits
and the number of hands that I'm playing. I hope you don't think this that amount of profit is trivial.
I certainly do not believe your profit is trivial, but failing to mention the increase in variance would really
bias your results. When a player naturally increases their pre-flop selection and defends their blinds more,
the are going to have more swings and these swings work in either direction.
If you're playing about 15% of your hands before the flop when you should be playing about 20%, that
means that you're folding 5 hands per 100 that you should be playing.
Ok, so what do you believe are the 5% hands missing? What do you think players should be defending the
BB and SB with more often and how should they play it post-flop?
A good educated guesstimate is between .10 and .15 BB per additional hand folded. At that rate, five
incorrect folds per one hundred result in a sacrifice of between .50 and .75 BB/100 in your earn rate.
Don't you believe that if a tighter player who didn't play as well post-flop that this could be detrimental to
their win rate when they do loosen up?
211
3) The Ed Miller factor. There seems to be an inverse relationship between weak-tight play and Ed Miller
strategy posts. Ed isn't posting as much these days. Ergo...
When Ed wrote that book he was playing small limits in live games where most of his opponents were
usually bad to idiotic. Undoubtedly the main emphasis of his book focuses highly on post-flop play, but
even then I find his post flop concepts to be too limited (yet still very good).
His book also has to be taken with a grain a salt. If I'm sitting in a 10/20 game where my opponents are
clueless, loose and could have anything then I will 100% apply his strategy from SSHE. But most of my
opponents are not, most of them do have some knowledge of pre and post flop strategy to which the book
does not cover.
One thing about these forums, especially with resepct to the limit games, is that it seems a lot of 2+2'ers are
able to beat them for 2-3 bb/100 or so. I don't doubt that the majority of 2+2'ers who regularly post and play
can multi-table for such a rate, but for every one of you who does, I'm sure 8 fail to even sustain a winning
rate if at all.
The primary problem as I've stated doesn't lie within the fact that players need to play more hands pre-flop
and loosen up, though that would not hurt. The problem is that most players have inferior knowledge (and
in some part instinct/balls/savvy) to correctly play post flop.
So Nate, maybe you could do a post sometime that really puts some emphasis on post-flop play? I'd love to
read it..
El Diablo
I don't think this is the main problem for most who aren't making as much as they could be. In my
experience, as people get better and make more money, they play more hands, then they play a few too
many, and then they figure out a good balance. The key there IMO is making more money. That comes
from playing well post-flop and maximizing profits/minimizing losses. I think that should be the focus of
most people who are playing too tight pre-flop, rather than playing more marginal hands. I don't disagree
with your post, but I think that there are a lot people who can get in an extra few bets and steal a few extra
pots that they aren't doing right now (and make a few more not-so-tough laydowns), and that stuff will be
worth more to them than squeezing out a little extra with worse hands than they are currently playing.
sublime
i like your post, right on da money as usual.
here is my take. when you are ready to play more hands, you will play more hands. kina like one of those
zen based things.
i forget who said it, maybe louie landale, but like zero people have the problem of playing few to many
hands.
Greg J
Boils down to this:
QTo in lp = +EV for El Diablo and Nate tha Great
QTo in lp = -EV for me.
sublime
i doubt it. start playing it on the button and in the CO, sooner or later you will start making money with it.
its a okay hand.
sthief09
what types of hands are we talking about? one thing I noticed about my own numbers is that I don't play
212
hands like QJo enough. The idea that QJo is a terrible hand was forced down my throat so much that I just
automuck it now. I think hands like that and KJo and ATo are a lot better than I give credit for, and should
probably loosen up with them. are these the types of hands you're referring to?
DMBFan23
Nate,
I read a post of yours a while back describing some pokerstoving you had done. In it, you said that you were
going to chuck JTo in LP after a bunch of limpers; you were surprised at how little equity it had (usefulness
of hot and cold equity notwithstanding).
Is this still your stance?
MicroBob
I also have made semi-similar comments (not nearly as well articulated as nate's thoughts) to players who
post their PT stats with a VP-13, PFR-5 or something like that.
Or VP-24, PFR-5 which is just as bad the other way (if you're one of those players good enough to be
playing VP-24 then you sure wouldn't have a PFR of only 5).
I agree that Nate's advice isn't applicable to everybody...but there are a lot of players on here with mucho
experience who still have a REALLY low VP.
They might not be super-experts or anything...but many of those who have been here for awhile sure as hell
should be playing more hands. Period.
Again...this isn't true for everybody...but it is true for many around here.
I'm one of the exceptions in that I was hearing all the advice of playing more hands to maximize EV and I
was just killing myself by mis-playing marginal (as well as not-so marginal) hands. But that's just me.
All those VP-14 dudes really do need to bring it higher.
And if your VP is 4 or 5 (or less) then you are really missing a lot of raises in there.
I agree with the sentiment that the VP-13, PFR-3 guys are pretty easy to play against and push out of pots
(or get out of the way when they show strength).
I see a bunch of these guys and I'm pretty happy.
right now I'm playing the 6-max games...and am happy to report that my VP is actually a bit on the low side
(a problem I haven't had a lot of in my poker career). I'm also pulling in a nice profit at it...but will be
looking to raise my VP a little bit a time I guess. I'm folding a handful of marginal hands when I'm just not
sure.
VP 19-20, PFR-15 on the 6-max. I think the high PFR more than makes up for the low VP (or at least it has
so far).
good discussion overall.
you VP-14'ers would be well-advised to listen...just take your game to a table other than mine when you
actually start to heed the advice.
Nate tha' Great
Great discussion we've got going, and there are too many comments to reply to individually, so I'll just
collect my thoughts here:
1. To bobbyi and others:
I don't think the hands between say a 15% and 19% VPIP are the truly marginal sorts of hands that you're
talking about. Rather, I think these hands are likely going to have an expectation somewhere between .05
BB and .20 BB. The truly marginal sorts of hands with an expectation greater than zero but less than .05 BB
213
exist IMHO beyond the 19/20% VPIP threshold.
2. It's not something that's been talked so much about here, but the rake makes more of a difference than
you might think.
Just to compare two structures that I'm familiar with: the Party $15/$30 uses a rake that caps at $3, while my
local B&M $10/$20 game features a $5 rake (boo!) plus a $1 tip, for a total $6 drag on the pot.
Now, let's assume that you win 35% of the hands that you play.
In the Party $15/$30, your contribution to the rake when you play a hand is 35% x $3 = $1.05 = 0.035 BB.
In my $10/$20 B&M game, your contribution would be 35% x $6 = $2.10 = 0.105 BB.
That's a gap of 0.07 BB/hand, which has the potential to make quite a bit of difference, considering how
many hands there are along the margins of profitability.
Most starting hand guidelines are based implicitly or explicitly on B&M-type drag structures. The best
Turbo Texas 'Hold Em bots, for example, have trained themselves to put money in between 18-19% of the
time after extensive modelling and testing, but also based on an assumption of less favorable rake structures
than exist in most midlimit online games. It's not surprising to me that the HEFAP starting hand guidelines,
on the other hand, would have you being a little bit looser with things like blind defense and limping with
suited connectors, as these are likely based on Mason and David's experience with collection and time-pot
live games where the only tax to enter the pot is your share of the $1 tip.
3. For that matter, I'm not suggesting that people push every edge as far as possible. My unstated goal when
I'm multitabling online is to play any hand that has an expectation of +0.05 BB or higher. I'd sacrifice the
truly marginal hands in an effort to preserve my table image, my attention span, and my sanity.
However, when I drill down into Pokertracker - this is something that all of you with substantial databases
can do - I find that the most marginal hands that I'm presently playing in a particular situation are showing a
profit a fair bit above that 0.05 BB threshold. Playing the weaker suited broadway hands like KTs and JTs
and QTs UTG for example - they're not just squeaking by for me, but showing a pretty healthy profit. And
so I'm wondering whether I should be looking to play K9s and J9s and T9s and so forth in that spot as well.
Similarly, the very weakest blind defenses that I'm making are showing a profit of around .15 BB/hand
compared to the loss that I'd have if I'd folded, which makes me think I might defend even more liberally.
4. The points made by Michael Davis and others about table image are very important. That said, there are
certain hands that you can add that don't really require an offensive posture and might not have a deleterious
effect on your table image. Overlimping in UTG+2 with 98s for example - that's something I don't do at
present, but if I did, I hardly see how it would impact my table image one way or the other. In fact
something like defending your big blind more almost certainly has positive meta-game benefits.
5. My comments about excessive multitabling are mostly directed at people that are still playing at small
stakes. If you've experimented sufficiently and believe that you can maximize your profit by 6-tabling and
sacrificing some edges rather than 4-tabling and pushing things a bit farther, I'm not really one to argue with
that, provided that you're already playing a game like $10/$20 6-max or $15/30 full that offers significant
raw profit potential. On the other hand I think the people who are 8-tabling $2/$4 with a 15% VPIP are
clearly not maximizing their total dollars per hour, and are quite probably retarding their growth as a player.
6. The arguments about variance are misguided. If playing more hands allows me to make an additional
0.50 BB/100, that goes a long, long way toward reducing my risk of ruin that it would take an absolutely
enormous reduction in variance in order to compensate for.
7. To Josh:
214
I don't think, in particular, that the weak offsuit broadway hands like QJo, JTo, QTo and KTo are the first
place where you'd be looking to loosen up. You simply don't make enough nut types of hands with these
cards to really leverage them for very much profit, no matter how good the game is or no matter how skilled
you might be after the flop.
The first areas specifically where I'd tell a tightie to loosen up are, probably in this order:
1) Defending your blinds more, especially against steal raises.
2) Overlimping with more marginal hands in the Button or CO.
3) Stealing more or isolating limpers more with marginal hands in the Button or CO.
4) Limping, overlimping, or raising more with good suited hands and small-medium pairs in early position.
8. Just to stir things up a bit further, I think it's worth mentioning that the people who are defending a tighter
preflop approach tend to fall back more on dogmatic sorts of arguments, rather than the "evidence" I'm
presenting here about Pokertracker results and Turbo Texas simulations and Pokerroom hand histories and
rake structures and so forth. There is a bit of a "Tightness is Next to Godliness" vibe at work in some of
those arguments, IMHO.
greg nice
Playing the weaker suited broadway hands like KTs and JTs and QTs UTG for example - they're not just
squeaking by for me, but showing a pretty healthy profit.
this is counter intuitive to me, especially in a so called "very aggressive" game like 15/30. dont you expect
pots to get raised behind you? now your out of position with a dominated drawing hand.
Nate tha' Great
I'll tend to raise with these hands if there are players behind me who would pounce on a limp but there aren't
enough passive types to provide a high probability of a multiway pot. I can also start throwing in some
limp-reraises if this really gets to be a problem.
Occasionally you'll encounter a game texture in which there's a LAG one or two seats to your left but the
rest of the players are fairly tight. If you come across that game texture, you might muck a hand like QTs
UTG, but it also might behoove you to find a new table.
beachbum
My comments about excessive multitabling are mostly directed at people that are still playing at small
stakes. If you've experimented sufficiently and believe that you can maximize your profit by 6-tabling and
sacrificing some edges rather than 4-tabling and pushing things a bit farther, I'm not really one to argue
with that, provided that you're already playing a game like $10/$20 6-max or $15/30 full that offers
significant raw profit potential. On the other hand I think the people who are 8-tabling $2/$4 with a 15%
VPIP are clearly not maximizing their total dollars per hour, and are quite probably retarding their
growth as a player.
Can you elaborate more on this last sentence? I think I know what you mean but would like to hear your
finer points on the matter.
Equal mentioned something similar in a response to "3 things to do to improve your post-flop play." Is the
following kind of what you mean?:
"I usually play 3 tables at a time"
That's your problem. I am firmly convinced that multi-tabling plateau's your learning curve. You simply
cannot pay enough attention to the game play with more than a single table.
215
About 6 months into my poker careeer, I was stuck at Party 1/2 and 2/4, just a typical break even player. I
Had HEFAP and a couple other books, I studied my ass off and even had two online poker pros as
coaches. I definitely wasn't CRUSHING the game.
Then one day one of my coaches asked me how many tables I played simulataneously. I told him, he
laughed and said, "play one and if you get bored with a single table, that means you aren't paying enough
attention to the information the other players are offering you."
It was like a light-bulb went off when he told me that.
I couldn't believe how much better I could play focussing on just one table. After that fateful day, I
improved my play every week, saw my results skyrocket, and was playing $15/$30 less than four months
later.
Nate tha' Great
Can you elaborate more on this last sentence? I think I know what you mean but would like to hear your
finer points on the matter.
Well, just to be as explicit as possible about it, I think it's fairly silly for someone who plays a lot of online
poker in today's environment to *not* want to take a shot at a game like the Party 15/30. Certainly there are
going to be plenty of folks who try and take their shot and find they don't have the the higher-level skills or
the mental equilibrium for it, but when the upside is being able to make $100+/hour for a part-time player
or $100K+/year for a full time player with B+ sorts of skills, I think I'd advise almost who can beat smaller
limits to test their wherewithall in that game.
I do think it requires an ability to push small edges in order to beat the Party 15/30 for a good deal of
money. These can be either preflop edges or postflop edges - obviously the best players are going to be able
to do both. However there's a real risk that if you're nut-peddling at lower limits that you neither learn to
extract as much advantage as you can preflop, nor how to play properly in tricker situations and against
trickier, more aggressive opponents postflop as you're explicitly avoiding situations that would require you
to step out of your comfort zone.
bicyclekick
Well, just to be as explicit as possible about it, I think it's fairly silly for someone who plays a lot of online
poker in today's environment to *not* want to take a shot at a game like the Party 15/30. Certainly there
are going to be plenty of folks who try and take their shot and find they don't have the the higher-level
skills or the mental equilibrium for it, but when the upside is being able to make $100+/hour for a parttime player or $100K+/year for a full time player with B+ sorts of skills, I think I'd advise almost who can
beat smaller limits to test their wherewithall in that game.
So true but I hate to admit it cause I don't need a whole bunch more tight players in that game.
I do think it requires an ability to push small edges in order to beat the Party 15/30 for a good deal of
money. These can be either preflop edges or postflop edges - obviously the best players are going to be
able to do both. However there's a real risk that if you're nut-peddling at lower limits that you neither
learn to extract as much advantage as you can preflop, nor how to play properly in tricker situations and
against trickier, more aggressive opponents postflop as you're explicitly avoiding situations that would
require you to step out of your comfort zone.
This is huge. I agree. I'd expend so much more energy getting better than seeing how many thousand tables
I can play. 8 tabling 3/6 is kinda ridiculous if you ask me. Play 4 or 6 and spend the off time reading
posts/figuring out why good players do what they do.
If 8 tabling 3/6 really floats your boat, fine, but understand it's not the best way to the money.
216
PhatMango
Sorry, I am a newbie and just so I understand this correctly...
You are saying that on top of the extra EV one might get from playing these extra hands when holding
bonecrushers like AA, one could also eke out some extra EV from the marginal hands? So in your case, on
top of the extra .60BB/100 hands, you may also get the ancilliary benefit of getting more action from
opponents who read your stats when you hold premium hands?
Nate tha' Great
I'm saying that you'd get something like .40-.60 BB/100 more simply by playing the extra hands themselves.
The impact that playing these new hands would have on the hands you're already playing is ambiguous, and
depends on a lot of things like your opponents' powers of observation, their playing styles, and your ability
to adjust to a particular table image. I don't think going from 15% VPIP to 19% VPIP is going to make too
much difference either way, as you're still safely within the 'tight' classification in the mind of most of your
opponents.
Certianly, if you go *beyond* say a 20% VPIP/10% PFR, things can start to change in a hurry. There are a
few players who work well with a loose table image and even take steps to cultivate it, but it can make for a
rude awakening if you haven't experienced something like this and your ordinarily passive opponents wake
up and start playing back at you more. Certainly if you are opening up your game preflop to the point where
other players are going to notice, you can't play every hand postflop like it's the nuts. To give a concrete
example, I don't do as much raising with overcards after the flop as a tighter player might because my
opponents aren't going to be quick to give me credit for a premium hand. On the other hand, I'll call down
with overcards more frequently as my oppoenents are more likely to be playing back at me.
Luv2DriveTT
---------I can honestly say that I've made a lot of money from the dummies who sit on a 15/30 table with a vpip of
15% or lower playing abc poker.
---------I find this a little hard to believe. Most players who play tight preflop won't spill "a lot" of chips postflop.
While you may get a few more of their blinds, once they play back at you (with superior starting cards) it
will be a little difficult to outplay them.
---------I disagree with your assumption, the ABC low VP$IP players are easy to leverage a high profit because they
usually play a very basic and conservitive game post flop. This allows you to easily discard your hand when
your oponent plays back at you in a manner that expresses true strength, as this style of player rarely
deviates from the norm. Conversely these players will often discard their hands quicker if you represent a
monster. These are very profitable situations that are commonly ignored by the average ABC game 2+2'er.
Greg J
Hey TT. Are you differentiating btwn 2+2 ABC players and "other" ABC players. Are you implying "ABC
poker" is weak? I ask b/c while I may be a ~15 vpip player, but am (or at least try to be) a pitbull after the
flop. What are you considering "ABC poker"? I'm trying to figure out if I, or any of the other micro
regulars, fit the bill or not. I don't think this is necessarily a perjorative, but I look under every rock for
anything that might improve my game.
Hope that was somewhat coherent.
7ontheline
That's a good question - every time I evaluate my play I feel like I'm playing a lot of ABC poker. However,
I know that I've improved by leaps and bounds in the last year - maybe plays that I didn't use before now
seem ABC to me.
217
I guess ABC poker to me involves betting when you've got a hand, calling on a draw, and checking/folding
with nothing. Semibluffing, checkraising (without just monsters), and forcing the action harder with draws
are a way to move beyond that. I do know that I feel a lot more confident now making less orthodox plays moving to 5/10 SH has really made me work on my game. It's not at the level of all the guys here crushing
15/30, but it's a start.
Luv2DriveTT
I am not implying ABC poker is weak, what I am saying is that playing against ABC players (2+2 ABC or
unknown ABC player... I've played against quite a few 2+2'ers who don't impress me at all for this very
reason) alows you to easily get in their head, know what they are thinking, and from their play you have a
better standing in the game. This is why players such as Nate, Sfer, James, and others are so good, they do
not play a predictable game. I have played with Sfer live (not enough to develop a firm sample though), he
is very tricky, I strive to play more like him and Nate.. so should you.
As for your pit-bull after the flop statement, I think that is another common mistake I see here. Aggression
is good, put properly placed aggression is far more important. There are times when strategically its better
to check, you must know when and why. My favorite section of SSHE was the part about protecting your
hand, it shows that the best way to apply aggression by raising in a strong hand is when you can reduce your
opponents odds in 1/2. If by raising on the flop you lay your opponent with pot odds of 10:1 then he is
probably correct to call you down. Remember there is a difference between raising for value, and raising to
protect your hand. Don't be such a pit bull if it won't protect your hand!
PS: I think you may have found something under the rock...
Greg J
In other words, you are talking about changing gears. Right?
I like to think I am not uber-predictable, but there is always room for improvement. I have no delusions I
can hang with the guys in the mid-high stakes forum... yet.
Luv2DriveTT
Everyone here thinks they are not predictable, but I am willing to bet most are wrong (including me). If you
play the standard 2+2 way then you are predictable in the eyes of someone who pays attention and knows
you are a 2+2'er who follows and applys the strategys learned in the micro or small stakes forums.
Spend some time in the HUSH forums and watch how they change gears there, its quite interesting and a
great learning tool. I don't post there often (or in small stakes either) anymore because my time is limited,
and once I get sucked into those forums I never leave. Another thing you can try is Poker Academy Pro, I
modified the short handed tables to be hyper agressive and loose, its very chalenging to beat those tables. Its
a great trainer for most players to play 180 hands per hour on a single short handed table, its surprisingly
accurate to live B&M play as long as you ignore the advisor.
Greg J
I have been thinking about the thread a lot lately, and one thing that has stood out in my mind is the
"transition costs" of changing one's game. This has been touched upon in several posts in this thread, but
not explicitly discussed. Me and a lot of other players had trouble adjusting to SSHE play -- I went on quite
a loosing streaks after reading it, mostly b/c of poor play. I was misapplying the concepts. I am thinking a
similar transition cost might be applicable here. Maybe I would benefit long term though.
I am not, however, convinced yet that my preflop style (~15 vpip) is really that suboptimal, esp since it has
been sort of "naturally" dropping over the past 30k hands as my winrate has been going up. (Not a huge
sample I know, but I feel much more comfortable.)
Maybe I am not spelling out a question here, so much as presenting ideas (and hopefully not cluttering the
forum).
218
Evan
really straightforward and tight players may not be making a lot of money, but they are also not going to be
worth a lot of money to have in your game. Weak-tight old rocks are certainly going to be losing players,
but are they players that you'd be particularly excited to have sitting on your right? They're not for me.
scrub and I were talking about the big 4k/8k game in vegas one time and thinking about how we'd do if we
played it (we are certainly entertaining staking offers). The thing is that we just play too tight to really be
worth a lot of money (relatively) no matter how bad we were getting outplayed. The structure of limit
hold'em just doesn't allow really tight players to be worth a lot of money.
While exploiting a weak player's folding tendancy can help from hand to hand it is not something that I
would be looking to do for an entire session. If that's what I'm going to be forced to do I'd find another
table.
Luv2DriveTT
really straightforward and tight players may not be making a lot of money, but they are also not going to
be worth a lot of money to have in your game.
We both agree here, my point was that there is no need to fear someone just because they play tight preflop,
or might be a 2+2'er. A smart player who can adjust to various situations and the playing style of his or her
opponent has the advantage nearly every time.
Evan
I suppose I agree w/ what you're exlicitly saying because it is all correct. But I do not like the implication
that this is the type of advantage you should be looking for (and you are implying that as far as I can tell).
This is kind of similar to saying that limping aces UTG is +EV. There is really no way to argue with that
specific statement even though it clearly implies incorrect reasoning.
LinusKS
Alright, let's say you're talking to me here.
Say I'm showing 13.5 VPIP/ 8.5 PFR at low-limit full (2/4, 3/6).
What hands do you advocate adding?
Nate tha' Great
I dunno. Wanna try a quiz?
1) You have 7 6
Call, fold or raise?
in the BB. Everyone folds to a 2+2er who open-raises on the Button. Folded to you.
2) Same scenario as above except your hand is A
3) Same as above except your hand is T
9
8
. Call, fold or raise?
. Call, fold, or raise?
4) Same scenario as above but your hand is Q
4
. Call, fold, or raise?
5) Two loose players in MP limp and you have 7
fold or raise?
5
on the Button. The blinds are fairly loose. Call,
6) Same scenario as above except your hand is J
9
. Call, fold or raise?
7) It's folded to you on the Button and you have A
raise?
6
. The SB and BB are unknowns. Call, fold, or
219
8) Same scenario as above except your hand is 9
8
. Call, fold, or raise?
9) A 2+2er raises UTG+1 and a loose fish in UTG+2 cold calls. You are next to act in EMP. You have
T 8 and the players behind you are fairly loose. Call, fold or raise?
10) Same scenario as above except your hand is 5
11) You are on the Button with K
are fairly tight. Call, fold or raise?
Q
5
. Call, fold, or raise?
. An aggressive player is in the CO and open-raises. The blinds
12) Same scenario as above except your hand is 6
6
13) You are in UTG+1. UTG folds. Your hand is A
passive. Call, fold, or raise?
14) Same as above except your hand is K
J
. Call, fold, or raise?
9
. The players behind you are loose and fairly
. Call, fold, or raise?
15) You are UTG and first to act. The game is tighter than usual for your limit and a 2+2er is in the big
blind. Your hand is A T . Call, fold, or raise?
16) Same as above except your hand is Q
T
. Call, fold, or raise?
17) Same as above except your hand is 7 7 . Call, fold, or raise?
18) A 2+2er raises from three off the Button. It's folded to you on the Button, where you have A
The blinds are unknown. Call, fold, or raise?
19) A very loose and passive player limps in late middle position. You have A
2+2er is in the SB and you don't know the BB. Call, fold, or raise?
20) Same as above except your hand is 4
4
9
J
.
on the Button. A
. Call, fold, or raise?
21) An average player open-raises in middle position. You are in the SB and have 6
features a 1/2 blind structure. The BB is fairly loose. Call, fold or raise?
22) Same as above except your hand is Q
J
6
. This game
. Call, fold, or raise?
23) You are in the BB and everyone folds to a 2+2er in the SB, who raises. Your hand is 8
fold, or raise?
7
. Call,
BreakEvenPlayer
First of all, Nate this is an incredible post and thread, I've been sitting at the 3/6 tables for a long time
seeing these 2+2 (and other) multitablers with VPIP's of 12 and the like and just kind of giggling to myself
at how sub-optimal that is.
It's just so much more profitable and so much more damn fun to play the extra hands which get's one to the
20 VPIP, which I think is a great number, especially in the 3/6 game.
Linus says:
Alright, let's say you're talking to me here.
Say I'm showing 13.5 VPIP/ 8.5 PFR at low-limit full (2/4, 3/6).
What hands do you advocate adding?
220
Well, it's not quite as simple or concrete as that. Like it has been said in earlier posts it's much more about
finding good positions to play these marginal hands.
If you notice two weak players limp and you're in the CO or button with KTo you need to raise this hand,
especially if the blinds are more tight/passive players.
If you have A3o and it's folded to you on the button you need to raise this hand every time. It's not easy to
play these hands, and a fair amount of the time bad players are going to make weird moves on you which
will increase your variance but this is a necessary step towards higher profit.
You probably are not doing enough isolation of terribly loose players that sit to your right in these games.
When some maniac with a VPIP of 75 and a PFR of 50 raises in MP in one of your games, instead of
mucking your K9s, you need to three-bet this guy and take his money. Yes, once again we're increasing our
variance, but your K-high unimproved is enough to win this pot 33% of the time.
It's all about situations. Life will be interesting for awhile playing these extra hands, but you're really
missing out in the present (and the future potential of increasing limits) if you do not learn or desire to play
more optimally than you do now.
BreakEvenPlayer
1) fold
2) call
3) fold
4) fold
5) call
6) fold
7) raise
8) raise
9) fold
10) fold/call
11) fold
12) fold
13) call
14) raise
15) raise
16) raise
17) fold
18) fold
19) raise
20) raise
21) call
22) fold
23) fold
Michael Davis
1) Call
2) Call and bet flop
3) Call
4) Call
5) Call
6) Call
7) Raise
8) Raise
9) Fold
10) Call
11) Raise
12) Raise
221
13) Raise
14) Raise
15) Fold
16) Call
17) Call
18) Raise
19) Raise
20) Raise
21) Raise
22) Fold
23) Usually call, very player dependent
cab4656
I'm too tight, but I've known it for a while. I'll post my answers.
1. Call.
2. Call. I wonder if I should be raising here though.
3. I'd probably fold here. I should probably be calling.
4. Call. It's suited. But now that I think of, this hand isn't that much better than the hand in question 3. I need
to be calling there.
5. Call.
6. Fold. Mid offsuit one-gapper? I'd play JTo here. This one seems marginal though. This is probably one
where I am wrong.
7. Raise.
8. Raise.
9. Fold. I am convinced a fold is correct. I don't want to deal with a 2+2er who raised in early position.
Also, while a multiway pot might be developing, it can't be enough to compensate for playing this mid
suited one-gapper in early position against a raise.
10. Fold. I'd be more likely to call this than the hand in question 9. I'd much rather be in late position and
know that these guys are going to cold-call. Also, our position relative to the raiser here isn't that great.
11. 3-bet.
12. 3-bet.
13. Call.
14. Fold. I think this is a mistake that I've been making. It is probably correct to call.
15. Tough one. What I'd do here probably varies. If I'm playing well, I might get crazy and raise. If I'm
running bad, I'd probably fold. This is one that I have no clue how to play. I don't think I'd call though.
16. Another tough one. I think I'd be more likely to raise though, because I like the suited/connected value.
This logic could be fundamentally wrong when contrasted with the ATo hand - if so someone please tell me.
17. Raise. This one is easier. I hope.
18. 3-bet.
19. Raise.
20. Raise.
21. Tough one. I can honestly say that I've done all three options here and don't know which one is correct.
Calling probably isn't correct though. I have no idea.
22. Fold.
23. Fold. It's probably worth playing though.
Thank you a ton for this post Nate. Here are my ugly numbers:
2/4 full: 16 VPIP
3/6 full: 15 VPIP
5/10 6max: 20 VPIP
After reading your post, I had a 25 VPIP session of 5/10 6max. It felt good. Maybe I was just running
well or whatever , but I tried to find a few more raises and calls in marginal situations instead of folds. It
worked well for +33 BB.
222
bicyclekick
1) call.
2) call
3) call
4) call but folding wouldn't be horrible either.
5) wouldn't really make much difference what you do as I bet it'sa bout even money but with all you talk
about I guess a call makes sense.
6) call.
7) raise
8) raise
9) fold
10) call
11) raise
12) raise
13) call
14) fold. Unless you are talking the oober loose passive noob style...like micro then maybe a call is in order.
15) fold
16) fold - I play this at 15/30 but not 50/100...
17) Probably raising. You'll more than likely pick up the blinds, though. Calling isn't bad either.
18) raise
19) raise
20) raise
21) I've been workin with this one for awhile. I've been raising and liking it enough. Calling is oK too.
22) call.
23) call. everyonce in awhile I raise hands like these for meta-game considerations, but there is no way in
hell i'm folding.
Nikla
1) Call
2) Call
3) Call
4) I'd fold, but i think it's close
5) Fold
6) Huge fold
7) Raise
8) Raise
9) Fold
10) I'm alot more inclined to call this than the T8h, I suppose it comes down to exactly how loose and
passive the other players actually are.I'd probably muck in in the typical 50-100 game, but that game is
rarely loose..
11) 3-bet
12) 3-bet
13) Fold
14) Fold
15) Fold
16) I'd fold
17) I'd raise
18) 3-bet
19) Raise
20) Raise, but it's marginal.
21) Tough one, I prefer 3-betting over calling though.
22) Pretty easy fold.
23) Easy call.
LinusKS
I dunno. Wanna try a quiz?
223
1) You have 7 6
Call, fold or raise?
in the BB. Everyone folds to a 2+2er who open-raises on the Button. Folded to you.
Call. If I hit a 7, a 6, two clubs, or an OESD, I'll check-raise the flop. If I miss entirely, I'll check-fold.
2) Same scenario as above except your hand is A
8
. Call, fold or raise?
This one's tougher. I hate Ace-rag.
I call, and then call him down if an A or 8 comes. Otherwise, I fold.
3) Same as above except your hand is T
9
. Call, fold, or raise?
I call, and revert to the plan in question #1. (Except for the flush-draw, of course.)
4) Same scenario as above but your hand is Q
4
. Call, fold, or raise?
Fold. I'd only try to play this hand short-handed or against a LAG or a perpetual blind-stealer.
5) Two loose players in MP limp and you have 7
fold or raise?
5
on the Button. The blinds are fairly loose. Call,
9
. Call, fold or raise?
I fold. I don't play suited gaps lower than J9.
6) Same scenario as above except your hand is J
I fold. The weakest o/s gap I play is QT, and that rarely.
7) It's folded to you on the Button and you have A
raise?
6
. The SB and BB are unknowns. Call, fold, or
It depends on how I'd been running. If I thought my raise would get some respect, I'd raise. Otherwise I'd
fold.
People are funny - if they see you winning, they tend to get out of your way. If they see you losing, they
tend to pile on.
8) Same scenario as above except your hand is 9
8
. Call, fold, or raise?
Raise. This hand has a lot of deception value, as well as being a reasonably good hand anyway.
9) A 2+2er raises UTG+1 and a loose fish in UTG+2 cold calls. You are next to act in EMP. You have T
8 and the players behind you are fairly loose. Call, fold or raise?
Fold.
10) Same scenario as above except your hand is 5
5
. Call, fold, or raise?
That's a tougher one. If I'm reasonably well convinced there will be a couple more calls behind me, I call.
Otherwise I fold.
11) You are on the Button with K
are fairly tight. Call, fold or raise?
Q
. An aggressive player is in the CO and open-raises. The blinds
If he's LAG, I raise. If he's TAG (or in-between), I call.
224
If I'm wanted to shut out the blinds, I would raise, but I'm more worried about shutting them out when
they're loose, and less worried if they're tight.
12) Same scenario as above except your hand is 6
6
. Call, fold, or raise?
I think you need to raise here. You really don't want the blinds tagging along if you can help it.
If the CO is LAG, you can raise/bet the flop even if an A or K comes, and you probably need to bet the turn
as well, if he checks/calls. If he's a TAG, I probably drop it if an A or K comes on the flop.
13) You are in UTG+1. UTG folds. Your hand is A
passive. Call, fold, or raise?
9
. The players behind you are loose and fairly
Well, if the game is truly loose and passive, I guess you can call with this kind of speculative hand. I don't
see this much at Party, though. I usually drop A9s from EP.
14) Same as above except your hand is K J . Call, fold, or raise?
In a loose-passive game, I suppose it would be correct to call - maybe even raise this hand.
I rarely ever see these kinds of LP games at Party, though - where LAGs (and even borderline maniacs)
are about as common as the fish.
15) You are UTG and first to act. The game is tighter than usual for your limit and a 2+2er is in the big
blind. Your hand is A T . Call, fold, or raise?
I fold this. AJ is about the weakest hand I'll raise UTG with.
16) Same as above except your hand is Q
T
. Call, fold, or raise?
Fold.
17) Same as above except your hand is 7
7
. Call, fold, or raise?
Tough one. If it is a tighter than average table, I'll probably raise here, if I think my raise will get some
respect (for example, because I've been winning).
18) A 2+2er raises from three off the Button. It's folded to you on the Button, where you have A
The blinds are unknown. Call, fold, or raise?
J
Because you say he's 2+2, I just call here. Assuming he's pretty tight, he figures to be dominating me
enough of the time that I'm not really looking to be heads up here.
Some of the value comes from the flush potential, so I might as go in multi-way.
19) A very loose and passive player limps in late middle position. You have A
2+2er is in the SB and you don't know the BB. Call, fold, or raise?
9
on the Button. A
Raise. Assuming the lp will limp there with almost anything, and the 2+2er will fold a lot of the hands
you'd like him to fold, this is a nice hand to isolate.
20) Same as above except your hand is 4
Raise. Same as above.
4
. Call, fold, or raise?
.
225
21) An average player open-raises in middle position. You are in the SB and have 6
features a 1/2 blind structure. The BB is fairly loose. Call, fold or raise?
6
. This game
I lean toward calling, but I think raising might be right as well.
22) Same as above except your hand is Q
J
. Call, fold, or raise?
From an average player, I'd fold this. If it was suited, I'd call.
23) You are in the BB and everyone folds to a 2+2er in the SB, who raises. Your hand is 8
fold, or raise?
7
. Call,
I think I have to call this. This is the absolute bottom of my blind-defense mode, though. If I miss the flop, I
fold.
cnfuzzd
yay! My first real quiz.
<<<<I dunno. Wanna try a quiz?>>>>
Sure i'll dance? Do i have to put out, too?
1) Resteal, especially if my image against the 2+2er is good, ie he doesnt know its me, and thinks im some
other more respected poster. 2+2er will raise here with either a very wide range of hands, or a very narrow
range, depending on his playing style. I will bet the river unless its capped, and if i flop any sort of pair, im
probably going to showdown.
2) Im weaker defending against good players with the ace. I never seem to be able to hear it when someone
screams that my kicker is beat. I usually would try to resteal around half the time, call the other half, tending
towards calling when i know that 2+2er is timid in stealing blinds.
3) Usually tend towards calling, however sometimes it could be fun to resteal with this hand. Probably
about 50-50
4) I dont like it, and fold. Q4 isnt enough, i need to have at least some decent middle pair possibility, and
some draw outs in case im dominated.
5) This is one of those hands where i think fishdaddy would raise to buy the button from himself, but i just
call.
6) I just cant play this without it being suited, or a couple more limpers, especially if im playing a mix of
loose players who wont tell me im beat, or who will raise me all the way down.
7) Raise
8) Depending on how unknown, i will raise this about half the time, and muck. It also depends on what
hands ive been showing down.
9) If ive seen the players behind me play very poorly and coldcall preflop multiple times, i think i will call
here. However, i hate my position on the pfr, and cant really build a big pot, so i am looking for a fold,
especially since i may not pick up enough cc'ers to make my preflop call worthwhile, but just enough to call
me down with overcards to push this into -EV.
10) Call. Im drawing to a hand that wants lots of action, and wants people to stick around when ive made it.
11) 3bet. While an aggressive player will cap regardless of his hand, even if you are behind you are
probably drawing to six live outs, and you have position.
12) Raise. Knock the blinds out, improve the showdown value of your hand, and you are probably ahead.
play better than the other guy postflop.
13) Call. While im playing this hand for its big draw potential, im also making money from hitting top pair.
While passive players may not always raise a better ace preflop, when they do, thats valuable info to have.
Also, raising preflop can scare off some breeds of loose-passives, and i like having them around.
14) call. I dont like playing this hand in ep, but this is pretty much the time to do it.
15) Depending on how tight, you may get an AJ or AQ, amongst others, to fold, and you will have a great
steal setup on the flop.
16) This ones a bit tougher. While i think the above logic applies here to raising, i still dont think i could do
226
it. I call.
17) Raise
18) I fold. Its probably a leak. If i were to play, i would 3bet.
19) Raise. Try to isolate, and if that goes poorly, your hand doesnt do to badly here.
20) In reality, i probably manage to raise this about half the time. The average BB in my game wont fold to
the isolation raise, and i think overusing it is bad.
21) I assume the raise was folded to me. Im thinking i should call here, but i will probably fold this
depending on how the table has been paying me off. Lets call it 50-50
22) 3.5:1.5 isnt very good odds, but assuming ive seen my opponent chase down some ridiulous aces or
such, i may call here.
23) I reraise. My hand isnt strong enough to call, and im not doing that badly against anything except an
overpair.
Woot. I dont fold alot.
Nate tha' Great
1) You have 7 6
Call, fold or raise?
in the BB. Everyone folds to a 2+2er who open-raises on the Button. Folded to you.
Call (10)
Reraise (7)
Fold (0)
This is one of the clearest answers in the entire quiz. You need to play this sort of hand. Remember,
depending on the rake structure, you're typically getting around 3:1 to see the flop when defending against a
raise from someone other than the SB. The primary concern I have in blind defense is to play a hand that
will like a lot of flops, such that I can proceed with some confidence and recoup some of that loss.
76s will hit a ton of flops. It will make a pair, two pair or trips around 30% of the time. While sometimes
that will include a flop like AQ6 that gives you a headache, you should generally assume that you're ahead
when you flop a pair in a blind defense situation, and should proceed accordingly, and 76s is not all that
subject to domination concerns from big cards. What's more, it will flop an OESD or a straight around 8%
of the time, and four-flush or made flush around 12% of the time. That's already about half of all flops, and
that's before counting things like when you flop a gutshot and a backdoor flush draw or a gutshot and you
think your pair outs might be good, where you should also usually proceed. Very easy blind defense.
Reraising is fine as a variation play, but this one should fine with a flop-or-fold approach.
2) Same scenario as above except your hand is A
8
. Call, fold or raise?
Reraise (10)
Call (8)
Fold (3)
This hand would certainly outperform 76s in a hot-and-cold simulation; in fact it's probably a favorite
against the range of hands that an aggressive 2+2er would open with on the Button. That said, it can be
somewhat difficult to play out of position after the flop. The main reason why is that some of its value
comes from being the best hand unimproved once all the cards are out, but check-calling the whole way
leaves you in a guessing game that gives up too much control to your opponent. On a flop of KJr rainbow
for example ... do you feel comfortable there? You'll probably check-fold, but a lot of the time, you'll be
doing so with the best hand against something like Q9s.
So I think it's somewhat more important to take control of things with this hand in order to pick up the flops
where neither you nor your opponent improve. This is not so much to induce your opponent to fold
incorrectly - though that will happen sometimes when the flop is like the example above and he has 55 - but
to prevent *you* from folding incorrectly, or from giving your opponent free reign to take free cards, value
bet, or bluff at the pot as he sees fit. The easiest way to do this is simply to 3-bet before the flop, but other
227
players have success with check-raising or betting out on flops that seem favorable for ace-high (something
ragged without face cards, generally).
Even if you're only going to call, that's almost certainly better than folding. The fact that you have an 8 for
your kicker matters when your opponent will be raising with hands like 66 and K7s.
3) Same as above except your hand is T
9
. Call, fold, or raise?
Call (10)
Reraise (6)
Fold (6)
This one is closer. You'll still flop plenty of pairs, and they'll be higher pairs than you'd make with a hand
like 76s, but this is compensated for by the fact that the T and 9 are slightly more subject to domination
concerns, or could put cards on the board that will give your opponent a straight draw and encourage him
(correctly) to proceed with his hand. Still, you'll make plenty of straights, and the hand has enough highcard power that I think it's usually worth it to proceed. As several have noted, I wouldn't go too much lower
with offsuit connectors unless the opponent is really loose or you've really become expert in blind defense.
4) Same scenario as above but your hand is Q
4
. Call, fold, or raise?
Fold (10)
Call (6)
Reraise (5)
This is not a particularly good blind defense hand. It ranks higher than something like T9o, but you are
certainly not going to be showing down queen-high very often. The Q will be dominated a fair amount of
time that it hits, and the 4 is a rather useless card. The hand is suited, but it doesn't contain the straight
draws that will give you good redraws and semibluffing flops. An expert might be able to defend with this
hand profitably but it wouldn't be one of the first ones that I'd add to my mix.
5) Two loose players in MP limp and you have 7
fold or raise?
5
on the Button. The blinds are fairly loose. Call,
Call (10)
Raise (7)
Fold (4)
The Button is so powerful that I think you should almost be going out of your way to play hands when you
have it. 75s is nothing fantastic - but as in the example of 76s above, it will hit a surprising number of flops
that you like, and there's little bad that can happen when you have the nut position. I'd expect to make a
small profit with this hand against two limpers. Raising is not horrible, but I'd probably wait for something
with just a little bit more high card power like 98s.
6) Same scenario as above except your hand is J
9
. Call, fold or raise?
Fold (10)
Raise (6)
Call (5)
When I ran some experiments a while ago based on hand equities against typical limping hands, things like
J9o did not hold up very well. The main reason is that hands like KJ, QJ and K9s are very typical limping
hands, so there's a good chance that you're dominated, and/or that your cards will not be very live. This
hand will make some straights, but not as many as a pure connector, and the cards that it makes straights
with will often hit your opponents' hands, making it more expensive to draw. I like a reraise a little bit better
228
than a call if you're going to play, but I don't remember the last time I saw the flop with this hand as
anything other than a blind steal.
7) It's folded to you on the Button and you have A
raise?
6
. The SB and BB are unknowns. Call, fold, or
Raise (10)
Call (3)
Fold (1)
Clear raise. You might muck the very weakest offsuit aces (A2o-A4o) on the Button against tough
opponents, but generally your opponents will be even more uncomortable with blind defense than you are,
and the combination of position, momentum and a hand that is likely best before the flop should be enough
to proceed with.
8) Same scenario as above except your hand is 9
8
. Call, fold, or raise?
Raise (10)
Fold (3)
Call (1)
I actually like this hand a fair bit better than the previous one. The reason is the way it compliments the
other sorts of hands that you'll be raising with - if the flop contains high cards like aces and kings that don't
fit your opponents hand, they'll usually give you credit for them if they've missed the flop themselves.
However, 98s will also hit plenty of flops on its own.
9) A 2+2er raises UTG+1 and a loose fish in UTG+2 cold calls. You are next to act in EMP. You have
T 8 and the players behind you are fairly loose. Call, fold or raise?
Fold (10)
Call (3)
Raise (2)
This hand was thrown in partly for deception purposes. I think calling here is pretty bad. It would be closer
if you had the Button, but a fold would still probably be best. I'll explain a little bit further below.
10) Same scenario as above except your hand is 5
5
. Call, fold, or raise?
Call (10)
Fold (7)
Raise (3)
This hand is not a slam-dunk, but I expect you'll probably show a small profit by cold calling against
aggressive online opponents who will pay you off if you hit a set. Your position against the initial raiser is
not great; on the other hand being relatively close to him on the table has some benefits as there will be
times when it's nice to face the field with two bets cold, either for hand protection or for value. If the players
behind you were very tight, you would probably want to muck, but the problem specifies otherwise.
The reason I think this hand is a lot better here than T8s is because it tends to hit all-or-nothing on the flop.
While T8s will hit big flops like four-flushes and OESDs, there are also a lot of times when it will make
something like a pair or a gutshot or even overcards plus a backdoor flush where it has too much equity to
throw away but not enough to really leverage. The particular problem with the T8s hand is that you'll often
get stuck in the middle - it might be fine to call the initial raiser's flop bet with a gutshot, but this can get
very nasty if there are players behind you who could raise. With a hand like 55, you're not nearly as likely to
get yourself in trouble after the flop.
229
11) You are on the Button with K Q
are fairly tight. Call, fold or raise?
. An aggressive player is in the CO and open-raises. The blinds
Reraise (10)
Fold (5)
Call (3)
I don't want to oversell this hand: it will not be a huge favorite against your opponents' range of raising
hands. In fact, it might be a slight underdog, even if he's fairly loose. Still, it's a pretty good hand, and it has
position, momentum, and your superior skills going for it after the flop. You should show a profit by
reraising with it against a loose opponent.
Note also that there is something of a 'reverse gap concept' at work here. Suppose that your opponent has
A9s. Suppose he knows that KQo is a hand that you'll rererise with. Suppose he also knows that KQo is
about the *weakest* hand that you'll reraise with. He's not very well-equipped to proceed on a flop like J63
rainbow, since KQ is about the *only* hand that he'll beat, while many others will have him drawing to 3
outs or fewer.
12) Same scenario as above except your hand is 6
6
. Call, fold, or raise?
Raise (10)
Fold (6)
Call (5)
This hand requires a little bit more expertiese to play as you won't hit as many flops. It also leaves you
somewhat vulnerable to flop semibluffs as it has so few outs if behind. Still, it will generally be the best
hand before the flop, and as before you have position and initiative. Having a reasonable table image is
somewhat more important when reraising with this hand than when you have something like KQo since
your opponent will generally have at least 6 outs if behind and you'd like to get him to make some incorrect
folds. An example is when he has A J and the flop is K 9 4 . He's actually got quite a bit of
equity here between pairing outs and backdoor draws, and folding on the flop would be a substantial
mistake. However, if he convinces himself that you're likely to have a king, a better ace, or a big pair, he'll
be hard-pressed to proceed. Even better is when he folds a hand like 77 on a flop such as this one.
13) You are in UTG+1. UTG folds. Your hand is A
passive. Call, fold, or raise?
9
. The players behind you are loose and fairly
Call (10)
Raise (8)
Fold (3)
I think it's important to get over the idea of lumping all suited aces with a kicker less than T into the same
category. The equity calculations and the simulations that I've evaluated suggest that A9s and A8s are a lot
stronger than their lesser counterparts. Their kickers may play favorably for you against opponents who will
come in with any ace, and something like a pair of 9's is a lot more likely to win the pot for you than say a
pair of 3's. I don't think you can go too wrong by raising here but calling is the standard play in a loose
passive game.
14) Same as above except your hand is K
J
. Call, fold, or raise?
Fold (10)
Raise (5)
Call (4)
Another case where you should not override what you've been taught previously. KJo is a troublesome hand
230
in this spot. You can call with it and risk getting isolated or being out of position against a large field, or
raise with it and get cold called in a couple places and be out of position in a large pot. Without the capacity
to make nut-type hands to bail you out, I think this is a fold.
15) You are UTG and first to act. The game is tighter than usual for your limit and a 2+2er is in the big
blind. Your hand is A T . Call, fold, or raise?
Raise (10)
Fold (5)
Call (1)
It's important to pay attention to your circumstances. Based on the simulations that I've run, ATo is
probably about breakeven or a slight loss UTG against a typical, somewhat loose table. On a tighter table, it
should play a lot closer to AJo or KQo and is probably worth a raise if your table image is solid. Note in
particular that the big blind can be presumed to be tight against an early position raise. Since the blinds are
going to be seeing more flops than any other player at the table, it's especially important to pay attention to
their tendencies when determining whether to raise.
16) Same as above except your hand is Q
T
. Call, fold, or raise?
Raise (10)
Call (9)
Fold (4)
I prefer to raise with this hand at a tight table. UTG raises tend to get a lot of respect, which will lead your
opponents to fold some of the hands like AT and KQ that might dominate you. If things go wrong and it
gets cold called or reraised, you still have a hand that can make big staights and flushes to bail you out.
Calling is probably better than folding if the opponents are tight and fairly passive, and should probably be
your default play if your opponents are loose and passive. The only time I'd be looking to muck a big suited
broadway hand up front is when I was at a tight aggressive table, and then I'd probably be looking for a new
game.
17) Same as above except your hand is 7
7
. Call, fold, or raise?
Raise (10)
Call (4)
Fold (1)
Raising here should be clear. Although Sklansky and Malmuth somewhat exaggerate the concept, there is
something to the notion that you'd rather play a small-medium pair against either a large field, where it gets
more equity from flopping a set, or a small field where the pair is more likely to hold up on its own. Since
you're not ensured a large field at a tightish table, limping is mistaken. On the other hand, you stand a good
chance to get it heads up against the blinds or perhaps a cold caller, where it should perform reasonably
well. If everything else goes to hell, remember that you'll flop a set 12% of the time. If raising here makes
you uncomfortable, it might be a helpful exercise to sort of mentally append a couple of extra pips to your
hand when at a tight table - pretend it's 99, rather than 77.
18) A 2+2er raises from three off the Button. It's folded to you on the Button, where you have A
The blinds are unknown. Call, fold, or raise?
J
.
Reraise (10)
Call (6)
Fold (4)
Very similar to the KQo example above. Your opponents hand range is going to be a little bit stornger, but
231
your hand is a little bit stronger too. Cold calling is probably better than folding but gives up too much
chance to win the pot right away on the flop.
19) A very loose and passive player limps in late middle position. You have A
2+2er is in the SB and you don't know the BB. Call, fold, or raise?
9
on the Button. A
Raise (10)
Fold (5)
Call (5)
This is not a fantastic hand but should perform well against a very loose limper's range of hands. Note that
you'd rather play this hand against a limper who plays with 50% of his hands but raises with 10% of them
rather than one who plays 50% of his hands but raises with 3% of them, since that pretty much nullifies the
chance that you might be dominated. Calling is not all that much worse than folding and might be the
correct play in isolated circumstances when the blinds are very loose or your table image is poor but you're
still likely to have a much better hand than the limper.
20) Same as above except your hand is 4
4
. Call, fold, or raise?
Raise (10)
Call (9)
Fold (5)
I'll raise with this hand when I'm playing my best. Note that you won't be much of a favorite against
anything except 33 and A2s so the best time to raise is when the limper plays straightforwardly after the
flop and will let you know when you're beat. Floating in with this hand and hoping to flop a set or steal a
pot on the flop is fine too; there's not that much that can go wrong when you have a reasonable hand and the
Button.
21) An average player open-raises in middle position. You are in the SB and have 6
features a 1/2 blind structure. The BB is fairly loose. Call, fold or raise?
6
. This game
Call (10)
Reraise (8)
Fold (4)
Some of my blind play has gotten sloppy because of the Party 15/30 game, which uses a 2/3 blind structure
that is very favorable to semi-coldcalling. That said, a pair of 6's is a hand you should probably want to play
here unless the raiser is rather tight. You won't quite be getting odds to flop a set, even considering the extra
bets that you'd likely make after the flop; on the other hand you're in good position to check-raise a ragged
flop where your pair has a good chance of being best. I slightly prefer to play it this way than to 3-bet
before the flop and put pressure on my opponent to miss, but if someone like bicyclekick says he's done
better with 3-betting, then I'd pay a lot of attention to that.
22) Same as above except your hand is Q
J
. Call, fold, or raise?
Fold (10)
Call (3)
Reraise (3)
I'm including a few of these examples here just to remind you of the point that you can loosen up
considerably without adding the sort of icky offsuit hands that you've been taught to avoid. This is a pretty
clear fold, as even the raiser's weaker hands are likely to leave you dominated.
232
23) You are in the BB and everyone folds to a 2+2er in the SB, who raises. Your hand is 8
fold, or raise?
7
. Call,
Call (10)
Reraise (7)
Fold (1)
The odds that you're getting when defending against a small-blind open raise aren't nearly as good as when
defending against a Button open-raise. Having position more than makes up for this. Provided that your
opponent does not need a premium hand to raise, you should be defending with almost any reasonable hand,
and reraising pretty liberally to mix your play up. Even if you adopted a passive strategy of simply calling
down when you made a pair, you'd probably show a profit against an opponent that will continue betting
into you while getting thoroughly annoyed.
jstewsmole
I think one of the main points Nate is trying to make, IMO, is not only are u missing out on some profit by
not playing these other hands but people wont become as good a postflop player (player in general) if they
are constantly avoiding tougher postflop decisions. Michael replied that he couldnt turn the profit that Nate
could with some of these other hands but if u keep avoiding these hands how do u expect to learn how to
play them postflop. How can one expect to play these hands profitably if there always avoiding them.
The other point he says, which i totally agree, is that people are more interested in 4 tabling or more, 2/4 or
whatever because they know they could make a decent wage doing this but they are not becoming better
players. Id rather one table 30/60 if i had the BR and sacrifice all profit if it would make me a better player
in the long run. Instead of adding tables move up limits and decrease tables if needed.
Since February of this year playing 2/4 until about the middle of may, I had a vpip of about 27% and a win
rate of about 2.5/100 so it can be done. Now i dont recommend playing like this at all, but ive noticed that
depending on the competition ur playing u can really increase ur vpip if ur are considerably stronger
postflop than the other players at the table. Playing this loosely (and i dont anymore because i noticed
moving up in limits that thats way too high a vpip)has really helpe d me become a better postflop player i
believe since iam facing alot more difficult decisions.
Some people are complacent though to keep doing what there doing and theres nothing wrong with that. I
just think thatll stunt ur growth as a player.
I think it all depends on ur goals if it is just about making money playing smaller limits then thats fine but if
its improving as a player then thats fine too.
I personally would rather sacrifice profit for a year if it means that i will be able to beat middle limit games
or higher down the road.
233
Blind Stealing Experiment
Nate tha' Great
I purchased Wilson's Turbo Texas Hold 'Em the other day and finally got around to running my first
meaningful experiment. This was an attempt to determine which hands are profitable to steal with on the
Button. Assumptions were as follows:
- Game structure is identical to 15/30 party, with 10/15 blinds and appropriate rake. Sorry 10/20 folks, but
this is the game I'm playing right now and it's the one I'm most interested in.
- The Button plays quite well, at least by computer standards.
- The blinds are loose and pretty aggressive. SB sees about 35% of flops, almost always for a raise. BB sees
about 70% of flops, about half the time for a raise. A straight blind steal (e.g. no flop) succeeds only about
20% of the time. Tbe blinds also play pretty loose aggressive postflop, although it looks like they aren't
check-raising quite as much as "true" Party Poker LAGs, and aren't showing down quite as many marginal
hands.
Here are the results for various hand categories. One million plus hands were simulated, so the sample size
should be significant. If I've described a hand as "borderline", it made money according to the software, but
less than 0.10 BB per hand.
Pairs: All are proftiable; though 22-44 are borderline.
Suited aces: All are significantly profitable.
Offsuit aces: All are profitable; A2o-A4o are borderline.
Suited kings: All are profitable; K2s-K4s are borderline.
Suited queens: All are profitable; Q2s-Q8s are borderline.
Offsuit kings/queens: Profitable to K8o/Q8o.
Suited connecting hands: Suited connectors are profitable to 65s or 45s. Suited one-gappers are profitable
to 86s or 75s. J8s, J7s and T7s are also profitable. 96s and 85s are borderline, as are J5s-J6s. Other suited
cards lost money.
Offsuit connecting hands: Offsuit connecting hands are clearly profitable down to Q9o/J9o/T9o. J9o, 98o,
87o and J8o are profitable but only sightly so. Others should be mucked.
234
What's interesting is that this replicates my blind stealing strategy almost exactly, and I'm sure it does for a
lot of other 2+2ers too.
Peter_rus
Take a look that those hands above are more than 33%. Around 45%. That's what i thought about - more
than 33% i use right now. But my and my friend's current investigations shows a bit lower number of 41%,
but very important that cypher of 41 is for 10-20 blinds structure so i guess 45 for 15/30 is very correct.
stripsqueez
i rekon if you have an attempt steal over 30% or so a good player can start to punish you - just a guess
based on what i've seen and done at the table
the hands nate describes are more or less what i steal with with the exception of the suited connectors - i'm
suspicious about a direct application of a statistical experiment such as this - short handed is a lot about who
you play rather than what you play
Chris Daddy Cool
hey dude, this is good stuff.
is this assuming a full ring table or 6 max table or the 3-4 handed encounters we love?
and assuming it is full or short, do these change much?
Nate tha' Great
The experiment deals a 10-handed table's worth of hands. If it's folded around to the Button, it requires the
Button to steal and then counts the results in its totals. Once one of the other players limps or raises, it
throws out the trial and deals again.
In other words, it should simulate the results of a 10-handed game, but only those situations specifically in
which it is folded to you on the Button.
Peter_rus
i rekon if you have an attempt steal over 30% or so a good player can start to punish you - just a guess
based on what i've seen and done at the table
My thoughts are a bit different:
Whatever you do at a table you can never punish *correct* moves preflop in a long term.
You can punish them postflop but if you face good postflop against you as well you can't take more than
your share postflop and this is become *only* preflop game.
Of course raising more than 40% when playing postflop not good will lead to some disasters, but if you
know how to handle increased blind agression you will win more if you add more hands for steal.
Nate tha' Great
i rekon if you have an attempt steal over 30% or so a good player can start to punish you - just a guess
based on what i've seen and done at the table
I don't know. This experiment has your opponents facing you with an awful lot of re-raises. I doubt the
computer plays as tough as a really good shorthanded player, but it probably plays better than a *bad*
shorthanded player, and you aren't getting let off the hook too easily.
I do think, specifically, that the suited connectors are worth stealing with. For example, 87s showed a profit
235
of 0.21 BB per hand, and 76s, 0.12 BB per hand. Compare that to 22 (+0.07 BB per hand) and A2o (+0.07
BB per hand).
spider
Anyone care to toss out some general thoughts about how things change with respect to different blind
structures? In particular:
1) Type of hand -- You should lean more towards suited/connected with the 10/15 struction than the 5/10 or
2/5 structure since you can much more easily end up with 2 opponents. Straightforward, right?
2) Steal more often with 10/15 than 5/10 or 2/5? Does Peter's guess of 4%-age points more at 10/15 than
5/10 sound about right? I will admit, it's not even obvious to me that you should steal more at 10/15 since
the odds of both blinds folding is quite a bit lower. I assume open-limping actually becomes somewhat
viable with the 10/15 structure? But the simulations only looked at raising, right?
Sorry if these are dumb questions, and I don't have much experience with the 10/15 structure, but am
curious if anyone cares to discuss these issues.
Nate tha' Great
2) Steal more often with 10/15 than 5/10 or 2/5? Does Peter's guess of 4%-age points more at 10/15 than
5/10 sound about right? I will admit, it's not even obvious to me that you should steal more at 10/15 since
the odds of both blinds folding is quite a bit lower. I assume open-limping actually becomes somewhat
viable with the 10/15 structure? But the simulations only looked at raising, right?
I ran a quick experiment of 100K hands using 2/5 blinds and the 5/10 rake structure. The "always steal on
the Button" experiment showed a loss of a fraction of a BB per hand, whereas in the 15/30 structure, it
showed a profit of +0.07 BB per hand. It definitely makes a difference and a reasonable 5/10 stealing
strategy might involve throwing away any of the hands I described as "borderline" in my initial post.
J.R.
The Button plays quite well, at least by computer standards.
Could you elaborate on this? Sure "it depends", but in light of the fact that
"The blinds also play pretty loose aggressive postflop, although it looks like they aren't check-raising quite
as much as "true" Party Poker LAGs, and aren't showing down quite as many marginal hands.
It sounds like Button puts in a bit more flop and turn aggression (becuase the blinds are loose and don't
check-raise that much) but slows down more on the river (because the blinds aren't calling as thinly on the
end) than the button might in a typical party game.
I quess what I am getting at is all of the borderline hands, and perhaps some of the "profitable" hands on the
lower end of the "profitable" spectrum, don't dervive their value primarily from the preflop egde they may
have and rely heavily on solid postflop play.
So are these hands more profitable if you play better than the button in the turbo sims or are they more
profitable because the typical party player in the blinds plays worse than its TTH counterpart (or perhaps
the party LAG plays better if they check-raise more and these hands aren't as profitable in real life)? How
accurately does TTH capture or simulate the postflop dynamics which are a significant part of these hands'
profitability?
Nate tha' Great
I can't give a complete answer as I've only played with the program for about five hours total. I was
convinced that the program plays well enough to provide some meaningful experimental results, but not
necessarily that it plays as well or in exactly the same way as a regular opponent.
That said, it seems to be consistent in its flaws. For example, the Button doesn't value bet on the end
236
enough, but the blinds don't make as many loose calls on the end, either. To some extent this is a direct
result of the computer profiles having been designed by training themselves against other computer profiles.
Peter_rus
Steal more often with 10/15 than 5/10 or 2/5? Does Peter's guess of 4%-age points more at 10/15 than
5/10 sound about right? I will admit, it's not even obvious to me that you should steal more at 10/15 since
the odds of both blinds folding is quite a bit lower.
Model i spoke about suppose that
- majority of a time it will be 3-way (around 70%). If it will be less than 70% than obviously i must expand
range of raising hands to 50 or maybe 60%.
-big blind when fully adapting - always calls trash or raises himself when he has hand better than average
card of a button.
-small blind always raise when he has hand better card of a button.
-small blind calls around 50% of trash which has correct odds against raiser assuming possible actions of
blind.
-button call all the raises always
-BB caps or raises when he has better cards than SB average 3-bet hand or better then button average raise
when SB limps
-postflop play totally ignored. Supposed they all play postflop with same strength.
So this model includes all the perfect actions of all 3 players instead of playing against LAG's or TAG's
etc...
All changes made to this model (if it has no mistakes) leads to loose more money(or loose profit if it's a
button). For eg. - folding blinds too much, 3-betting SB or BB too much. Calling SB too much or too little.
Calling instead of 3-betting etc...
I start thinking of this model after it was said by All1n in one of HU-topic that it's correct to play HU
assume SB-raise in around 83 or 86 (don't remember exactly raise first in) and i'm not right with my 50%
value raising HU. I made some counts and i really find that 86% of hands need to be raised (in 1/2 blind
structure) or at least limped if BB able to check when it's completed to him (but perfect BB play will be
always raise from BB when it's comleted to him) and i'm really was mistaken folding my SB HU in other
50% of hands. In a 15/30 game with 10/15 you must raise nearly 100% or limp/call a raise all 100%
because it's better (less minus) than folding a small blind.
I extrapolate (is it right word in English?) two-way preflop on 3-way preflop and find cypher of 41% with
the same blind structure. I was trying to make it to find correct raises for CO when all button, SB and BB
play perfectly but it's too hard as there can be much more different actions then 3-way.
I don't pretend on clear truth but i think you find some interesting things in what i wrote above and this will
provoke more researching.
P.S. I really don't know how to play game when i raise SB against BB 86% of time. I don't know what to do
with my trash postflop out of position and right now i'm thinking of it. But it's much more complicated then
only preflop so results will be not quickly.
MAxx
if you tried to steal with j-8o, the SB folded but the BB 3-bet you because he has noticed the frequency of
your steals...dont you think it would be better to fold to a 3bet than seeing the flop? i wouldnt like j-8o to be
237
called, much less played back at. i am surprise that this could be a good hand to steal with at any level.
like the study though.
Peter_rus
You're must not fold here even 23o.
MAxx
i would think you are def. right for image reasons, not wanting to display weakness, not encouraging people
to play back at you, etc.
but on just pure cards alone... i am just trying to say that you really don't want a call here. i wouldnt think
you would want to try and steal this hand against a moderately loose blind.
Nate tha' Great
if you tried to steal with j-8o, the SB folded but the BB 3-bet you because he has noticed the frequency of
your steals...dont you think it would be better to fold to a 3bet than seeing the flop? i wouldnt like j-8o to
be called, much less played back at. i am surprise that this could be a good hand to steal with at any level.
The player on the Button will by default throw away truly trash hands if he faces a cap when it gets back
around to him. I could design it differently but I don't think it would make a lot of difference.
Schneids
Wow I'm tight. Hands such as Q4s or K3s hit the muck from me on the button. I know I'm low 30s on blind
steals.
Good post. Def. some things to think about.
StellarWind
Let me add a cautionary anecdote.
Back when I was a beginner and developing my basic preflop standards I did quite a few TTH simulations.
By trying various situations and combinations of players I learned a lot and (for example) largely
reproduced accepted wisdom about UTG play in a small stakes game.
Then I tackled the question of when should BB call an UTG raise heads up. The results seemed strange and
I was suspicious that the software might have introduced a serious bias through its postflop algorithms.
One experiment I tried was forcing both players to have the same hand. I think it was Slick but it has been a
long time. The result over a long run with random board cards was that BB had a very large advantage.
This result isn't very surprising if you think about it. It's very difficult to develop software that plays well,
especially heads up. Even if you do a good job the software is likely to respond to recurring situations in the
same way. Obviously the software could randomize its play but that makes the already difficult
programming task much harder.
Somewhere in the software a place was reached where BB's aggression found a point of weakness in UTG's
defense and UTG caved way too much. Then the same mistake was repeated over-and-over and the
simulation was badly skewed.
The message here is that there could be large biases in your results that are almost impossible for you to
detect. You can't trust the EV amounts that are coming out of your simulations.
238
This almost never means trips
DMBFan23
however, should I still fold?
Party 3/6 game, I raise 1 bad MP limper in the CO with 77, BB and the limper call
Flop is Q 8 3 rainbow, BB and EP check, I bet, BB calls and EP folds.
Turn is another Q, puts a flush draw out there.
BB bets, Hero?
EDIT (5 BB in the pot about now)
brazilio
I'm still folding, I think hands that beat you like 99 and and 8 are going to bet out that turn, along with the (I
agree unlikely) trips. If that 8 were a 5, I'd definitely see showdown and I'd more than likely raise that turn.
JoshuaD
There are 5 BB's in the pot when the action's on you?
I have trouble in these situations as well.
How strong is your read and what does "bad" mean?
I am at first tempted to raise the turn, but I think if you're gonna continue, you should call down, and check
behind the river if checked to. I don't think a bet on the river gets you much money -- he'll fold any draw (or
a bluff) and call with any 8. He might have a 3 that he'll pay off with, but I think that's pretty rare, and
doesn't account for 50% of the time you get called.
So if I continue, I call down trying to see a showdown as cheap as possible. I think it's worthwhile to
continue here, I've had alot of guys take shots at me like this at 3/6 with absolute garbage. Does anyone bet
the river if checked to?
DMBFan23
no read on BB, but MP was not skilled at texas hold em. he was not really instrumental in the hand except
to show my AWESOME table selection skills and my badass isolation raise.
no strategy impact from that read though
Shillx
I would probably fold since you can't beat middle pair. If you had 99, I would raise and then check behind
on the river. With AA you could consider calling the turn if you feel like he is drawing dead.
JoshuaD
Especially without a read, I call BB down.
239
Why is everyone afraid of an 8 here? Nearly all fish think that Q is a bad card for their pair of 8's, not a
good card. They would be more likely to check/fold this turn with 8's than they would be to bet it. (Neither
is very likely).
Readless I see a showdown here, and take the pot more often than what I need to be profitable.
Nate tha' Great
Raise, fold to a 3-bet, take the free showdown.
Nate tha' Great
I would probably fold since you can't beat middle pair. If you had 99, I would raise and then check behind
on the river. With AA you could consider calling the turn if you feel like he is drawing dead.
With 99 I just call down. With 77 I take your line.
JoshuaD
Raise, fold to a 3-bet, take the free showdown.
I like this line better than my call/call.
toss
I don't think we can continue here as a pair of 8s can beat you. True villain can be betting with a FD, but I
don't think its profitable.
maynard
Nearly all fish think that Q is a bad card for their pair of 8's, not a good card. They would be more likely
to check/fold this turn with 8's than they would be to bet it. (Neither is very likely).
I don't agree - maybe certain semi-fish are scared by the Q, but I have had countless passive, ultra-awful fish
lead into me with mid pair when the top card pairs... I'm pretty sure they don't think any deeper than "hey, I
have two pair, and that's pretty good". It's pretty standard (for me) to see my pocket pairs between top and
mid pair hold up in these situations.
JoshuaD
I don't think we can continue here as a pair of 8s can beat you. True villain can be betting with a FD, but I
don't think its profitable.
A pair of 8's just isn't very likely given the action, IMO.
uw_madtown
Raise, fold to a 3-bet, take the free showdown.
Why is this correct? No matter what, you're putting in 2 BB, but with your line, you may VERY rarely be
pushed off a winner by a bluff 3-bet (quite rare, but not impossible). And you're not getting to showdown all
the time despite paying the same amount as call-call.
I'm what you would call "not very good," and proper use of this line (raise-fold turn, check behind on an UI
river) baffle me. So why is this correct?
meep_42
Raise/fold+free showdown gives the opponent a chance to fold, I'd guess.
GetThere1Time
-If he's betting a draw, you're charging him the max.
-He might fold an 8
240
-If he has a Q, he'll 3 bet and you can fold.
-You're putting in 2BB to call it down anyway
Nate tha' Great
Why is this correct? No matter what, you're putting in 2 BB, but with your line, you may VERY rarely be
pushed off a winner by a bluff 3-bet (quite rare, but not impossible). And you're not getting to showdown
all the time despite paying the same amount as call-call.
I'm what you would call "not very good," and proper use of this line (raise-fold turn, check behind on an
UI river) baffle me. So why is this correct?
First of all (this isn't directed at you), I think anyone who is suggesting a fold in this spot is wrong. We're
going to have the best hand here far too often for that.
So it's a question of how we want to play the hand from here on out. There are really three options
A. Call both turn and river.
Cost: 2 BB
Folding Equity: None
Chance of Folding Winner: None
Calling down is IMO a fair bit better than folding. By definition, it also guarantees that we see a showdown.
But we have no opportunity to pressure our opponent to fold a potential better hand.
B. Raise turn, fold to 3-bet, take free showdown.
Cost: 2 BB
Folding Equity: Some
Chance of Folding Winner: Possible but remote
The key thing is that this costs almost the same amount as calling down. I say "almost" because there is
some chance that the opponent 3-bets a queen, when we would have spiked a seven on the river, or, more
rarely, 3-bet bluffs. If we think there's a chance that an opponent would fold an 8, or some other hand like
99, this is a risk worth taking and then some: we'd get him to fold the winner far more often than we end up
folding the winner. There is also some benefit to folding our opponent out if he has A3, or even something
goofy like AJ, as these hands have between 8-9 outs against our hand (note that an 8 on the river would
counterfeit our hand).
C: Call turn, raise river, fold to river 3-bet.
Cost: 3 BB
Folding Equity: Perhaps Fairly High
Chance of Folding Winner: Almost none.
This line at least warrants a mention. Certain opponents will be suspicious if we raise the turn to represent
trip queens as our hand would not be especially vulnerable and we might want to continue milking bets out
of a draw or some other second-best hand. In other words, against this type of opponent, we may stand more
chance of folding out an 8 than if we took one of the other lines above. It also might help if the river comes
a card like a K or an A. Also, taking this line guarantees us the chance to see if we spike a 7 on the river,
which the above play does not. Still, there are some obvious trade-offs here:
1) Although I think this line potentailly represents more strength, the opponent only has to pay one more bet
to showdown his hand rather than two, which increases his incentive to call.
2) This line also guarantees the opponent a river card, so we don't gain any folding equity from an AJ/A3
type of hand.
3) We commit ourselves to putting 3 BB in the pot, rather than 2.
241
On balance, I think line (B) represents the best trade-off between risk and reward against a typical
opponent.
The Goober
C: Call turn, raise river, fold to river 3-bet.
Cost: 3 BB
Folding Equity: Perhaps Fairly High
Chance of Folding Winner: Almost none.
I'm confused. I thought that folding equity meant that your equity in the pot increases because of the chance
that your opponent folds. If he isn't going to fold the winner, and isn't folding a draw (since you are raising
him on the river), how can you have high folding equity in this situation?
Am I totally misunderstanding what folding equity means?
DMBFan23
I think Nate means the chance that we fold the winning hand - our pair of 7s.
DMBFan23
right after playing this hand I was almost sure raising the turn was the way to go, not being results oriented.
I like nate's alternate line of calling and raising the river. however, playing the hand, I just called down.
Turn Q
He bets, I call
River J
he bets, I call
he wins with AJo
thejameser
So the question is, would villain have folded on the turn to a raise? Hindsight is 20/20 but that seems as if it
may have been the best play here. With no reads you just have to play the odds. You knew he probably did
not have a Q, but did he have an 8 or a flush draw. In this case with no read I do not hate your line, in
retrospect that turn/raise fold to a 3 bet would have been better against this player(i.e. spewing chips
praying his A or J to hit). Your passivity told him he had the best of it with the J, but i guess it saved you the
risk of an extra BB in a pot that you would lose at showdown anyway.
242
Suited Connector Stats
Nate tha' Great
Just browsing through my PT stats and I noticed that I'm doing quite well with suited connectors. This is
about 25K hands from the Party 15/30 + 30/60 so the sample size is small, but I'm interested to see how
other people's numbers compare.
First, the stats for non-Broadway suited connectors:
T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s
VPIP: 46.71%
PFR: 16.43%
W$WSF: 41.18%
WTSD: 38.73%
W$SD: 58.23%
Cold Calls: 6/426
BB/Hand: +0.35
For comparison's sake, here's how I do with A9s-A2s
VPIP: 51.94%
PFR: 26.43%
W$WSF: 36.84%
WTSD: 37.22%
W$SD: 45.45%
Cold Calls: 3/541
BB/Hand: -0.01
And here's how I do with 22-77:
VPIP: 71.28%
PFR: 34.52%
W$WSF: 37.27%
WTSD: 33.95%
W$SD: 57.93%
Cold Calls: 22/672
BB/hand: +0.37
I've been of the belief for a while that the forum tends to underrate suited connectors while overrating Axs
so I thought these numbers were interesting. I suited connectors.
adamstewart
I'm wondering how to interpret the fact that you raise (medium and low) suited connectors preflop over
16% of the time.
243
Can you please elaborate?
Nate tha' Great
I raise with them on three occasions:
1) I'll open-raise with them in the CO or Button, especially the ones with more high card power (T9s), and
occasionally in earlier positions for mixing purposes.
2) I'll raise one or two limpers on the CO or Button. This allows me to represent high cards and pick up
some cheap pots if everyone misses. I can also take free cards etc where needed.
3) I'll raise several limpers on the CO or Button for value.
theghost
I am under the impression that raising med-low connectors for value (vs limpers) is bad, and that you should
limp along and see a flop first.
Representing high cards is cool I guess, but that's not really a raise for value, right?
(Or is the value deriverd purely from position, and not from necessarily hitting your hand?)
Nate tha' Great
Suited connectors usually do better than fair share against medium-weak limping hands. For example:
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=769910
pokenum -h 4c 4s - ac 9h - kc th - kd 5d - 8s 7s
Holdem Hi: 850668 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
4s 4c 155053 18.23 694254 81.61 1361 0.16 0.183
Ac 9h 178302 20.96 671005 78.88 1361 0.16 0.210
Kc Th 162021 19.05 669908 78.75 18739 2.20 0.201
Kd 5d 125532 14.76 706397 83.04 18739 2.20 0.158
8s 7s 211021 24.81 638286 75.03 1361 0.16 0.248
This sort of result is not atypical. But the most useful aspect of raising is IMHO is often getting to take free
cards on the flop or the turn.
bicyclekick
I think 2 things are going on here.
One your sample size is WAYYYYYY too small. In my 100k db i only got each suited connector 280-300
times.
Another important thing to look at is when you actually plyaed them...cause when you folded them in the
blind it still costs against them...
oh and you're probably a better player. Or maybe i just suck at playing suited connectors and very small
pairs. I'm definately open for discussion
244
Nate tha' Great
Bike,
It's hard to reach too many conclusions wrt the suited connectors since you're playing them less often and
less aggressively than I am. I do think they suit my style pretty well, but it's hard to articulate why.
Grisgra
To be fair I threw in a higher spade (8 other cards, two spades in there.)
Interestingly, you're still a tiny bit ahead, and if we assume you have position, well kudos to you!
Result
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=769934
pokenum -h 4c 4s - ac 9h - kh ts - kd 5d - 8s 7s
Holdem Hi: 850668 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
4s 4c 156301 18.37 692970 81.46 1397 0.16 0.184
Ac 9h 184648 21.71 664623 78.13 1397 0.16 0.217
Ts Kh 170841 20.08 660404 77.63 19423 2.28 0.212
Kd 5d 125856 14.79 705389 82.92 19423 2.28 0.159
8s 7s 193599 22.76 655672 77.08 1397 0.16 0.228
245
brick
Think about Shania.
Somebody's Shania is higher for suited connectors than it is for Ax. That is interesting.
Schneids
In 10/20 6max I'm winning more with A9-A2 suited than with the suited connectors though both are
profitable. I am also raising with both of these types of hands twice as often as you (though that is to be
expected) and playing both of them more often. My pocket pairs do slightly better than the suited
connectors, while having PF #'s most similar to yours in this category (80.83vpip and 50.37PFR).
Peter_rus
140K 15/30 games.
Nate's numbers in bracers:
stats for non-Broadway suited connectors:
T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s
VPIP: 28.05% (46.71%)
PFR: 0.99% (16.43%)
W$WSF: 27.53% (41.18%)
WTSD: 29.96% (38.73%)
W$SD: 47.08% (58.23%)
Cold Calls: 4/2517 (6/426)
BB/Hand: -0.06 (+0.35)
A9s-A2s
VPIP: 56.59 (51.94%)
PFR: 37.02 (26.43%)
W$WSF: 42.69 (36.84%)
WTSD: 38.10 (37.22%)
W$SD: 51.02 (45.45%)
Cold Calls: 23/3306 (3/541)
BB/Hand: +0.17 (-0.01)
22-77:
VPIP: 62.57 (71.28%)
PFR: 27.31 (34.52%)
W$WSF: 32.99 (37.27%)
WTSD: 33.15 (33.95%)
W$SD: 50.81 (57.93%)
Cold Calls: 72/3877 (22/672)
BB/hand: +0.12 (+0.37)
I don't think strength of Axs is overrated and suited connectors is underrated. The strength and winning
amount in long term (though i don't think even i have enough) of a hand is determined at limits when PFraise cleaning the field more succesfully and players tend to read something a bit about opponents hand with
your set of PFR standarts.
It's obvious if you don't like to raise with low to medium suited aces they will not show much profit for you
in terms of bb/hands as well as i don't like suited connectors and they show minus to me. It's more correct to
evaluate hands how they do:
1. If you limp on button with couple of callers.
246
2. If you raise first on button or CO so people put you on pretty wide range of hands don't scare of your
raise.
3. If you called a single raise on BB.
Some things to compare suited aces and connectors for my opinion.
Suited aces.
- you can win unimproved in SD decent amount of time (15-18%)
- you can catch nut flush
- you're more likely to catch hands that dominated you PF, though many good aces 3-bet you to ease your
tasks on flop.
- you often don't win much money postflop if you flop an ace or a kicker.
Connectors.
- you can't win unimproved in SD decent amount of time. So you're loosing 7-8% of preflop money
immediately as people go to SD nearly 50% of time HU and with someone raised with connectors probably
more.
- you can catch not only flush but a straight too this increase your implyed odds.
- you're less likely to catch hands that dominated you PF, though many good pairs 3-bet you to ease your
tasks on flop.
- you often don't win much money postflop if you flop a pair.
I suppose if i add to my trash Aces,kings, and queens also suited connectors i quess many people would
stop pay me any credits at all and i will be forced to exclude something from my PF-list. And as my
postflop play suited more for show my hand and often unimproved i don't like cry bets on river with my 89s
as these bets work only 9% of time in general and usually incorrect.
Have a good run, Nate and enjoy your style as it's quite profitable for but i wouldn't made such big
conclusions in your place assuming i wrote above.
stoxtrader
I have edited this quote to include my numbers in brackets last, after peter's and then nate's numbers. this is
over 85k 15/30 hands.
T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s
VPIP: 28.05% (46.71%) [34.01]
PFR: 0.99% (16.43%) [6.06]
W$WSF: 27.53% (41.18%) [25.48]
WTSD: 29.96% (38.73%) [26.01]
W$SD: 47.08% (58.23%) [47.3]
Cold Calls: 4/2517 (6/426) [8/1567]
BB/Hand: -0.06 (+0.35) [-.03]
A9s-A2s
VPIP: 56.59 (51.94%) [59.65]
PFR: 37.02 (26.43%) [27.52]
W$WSF: 42.69 (36.84%) [34.99]
WTSD: 38.10 (37.22%) [32.97]
W$SD: 51.02 (45.45%) [53.32]
Cold Calls: 23/3306 (3/541) [9/2020]
BB/Hand: +0.17 (-0.01) [+0.14]
22-77:
247
VPIP: 62.57 (71.28%) [60.99]
PFR: 27.31 (34.52%) [13.93]
W$WSF: 32.99 (37.27%) [24.88]
WTSD: 33.15 (33.95%) [20.80]
W$SD: 50.81 (57.93%) [63.46]
Cold Calls: 72/3877 (22/672) [81/2333]
BB/hand: +0.12 (+0.37) [.15]
Nate tha' Great
Peter's point about sample size is correct, of course, and both your and his sample sizes dwarf mine.
It's interesting to me, though, that you and especially Peter play the suited aces more aggressively, and they
do better for you, and I play the suited connectors more aggressively, and they do better for me. The key
theme might just be that Aggression is Good. I personally prefer the suited connectors for balancing/Shania
reasons, but I don't know that the numbers do anything to prove or disprove this.
bobbyi
It's interesting to me, though, that you and especially Peter play the suited aces more aggressively, and
they do better for you, and I play the suited connectors more aggressively, and they do better for me. The
key theme might just be that Aggression is Good.
The direction of the causality is not clear. What you suggest may be true, but it also may be true that they
play the suited aces better than you do, and thus they make more money with them, which has caused them
to value them more highly and raise with them more often (and the same is true for you and suited
connectors).
Peter_rus
I really don't think so. I think the point is about balance and folding equity each of us have when playing. If
i would raise AA,KK,27o - i guess i would have pretty good stats with 27o but that wouldn't mean i'm damn
good when playing trash. Connectors have increased implyed odds, aces have some showdown value and i
think this greatly depend on style to choose to push first or second as most of EV comes from PF-raises.
Simply because "He RAISES this PF".
Usual rule: the more you raise PF - the less every single non-monstrous hand gives you long term. Find
balance between 'number of hands to raise'*bb/h, where bb/h is function, that depends on 'number of hands'
is the main task. What hands to raise is not so important, if good aces, and big pairs are in this list of PFR
too, i believe.
If Nate would be pleased to show how his connector do when he's not raise PF with them - then we could
have some clue how they played without examining PFR-sets.
brick
T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s
PFR: 0.99% (16.43%) [6.06]
BB/Hand: -0.06 (+0.35) [-.03]
A9s-A2s
PFR: 37.02 (26.43%) [27.52]
BB/Hand: +0.17 (-0.01) [+0.14]
22-77:
PFR: 27.31 (34.52%) [13.93]
BB/hand: +0.12 (+0.37) [.15]
It does appear that agression has a strong correlation to return. I would imagine that if a person played all
three groups very aggresively then the results wouldn't be quite as good for each individual group.
248
The question is can all three groups be played very agressively and still return strong results.
Or is it difficult to achive perfect "Shania" while playing all three groups very agressivly?
Peter_rus
It does appear that agression has a strong correlation to return. I would imagine that if a person played all
three groups very aggresively then the results wouldn't be quite as good for each individual group.
If push all these groups hardly, your AKo-AJo groop for example will loose some value as people wouldn't
fold PF much as you would attack too often and they will increase their complex implyed odds on you. I
don't know how much of course and maybe it still will be more profitable. But if you increase your PFR too
far - people will destroy ya very quickly.
Nate tha' Great
Peter - what's your overall PFR? Mine is about 12% in full games.
Peter_rus
Overall - 13.78.
Between 7 and 10 on a table - 11.56%.
Though PFR is nothing without position's PFR:
7 8.81
6 9.72
5 9.95
4 10.18
3 11.50
2 12.78
1 14.26
0 14.37
SB 10.66
BB 11.45
Nate tha' Great
Okay, I'm at 12.10 with the breakdown as follows
7 12.15 (small sample, just 724 hands)
6 9.82
5 10.74
4 12.29
3 11.50
2 14.59
1 12.97
Button 15.68
SB 11.55
BB 8.70
My numbers are kind of weird. It seems safe to say that I'm more aggressive in EP and you're more
aggressive from the BB, but other than that I don't know.
stoxtrader
I think your points are generally very good peter, but i disagree with this "metagame" analysis for the party
249
15/30.
are you saying that if you raised a lot more hands more, people would respect your raises less in general and
adjust appropriately? possibly, but very slightly if at all. If more aggression is the correct way to play suited
connectors for example i think (i do not know though) that playing them correctly would gain you more
than you would lose from raising more hands and having your opponents realize it, if they do at all.
Peter_rus
It's all quite close in TH i guess. Raising 77 but mucking 66, raising AJ but mucking AT, call with 97s BB
but mucking 96s. It's nearly all about thin values. If one of 50 people spots your increased PFR and adapt it
will decrease value of your raisings some little% down, if 2 - then more etc.
Those connectors wheight nearly 12-13% of Nate's PFR that makes people calling with weak A-high pretty
correct (assuming Nate also raises many K-high hands and some Q-highs they'll get significally more
probability to be ahead than against my raise especially when he raises LP), while when i raise i know
exactly that if they start to call me with A-high routinely - they will loose long term way more than if they
just folded.
Nate tha' Great
Well, the key to playing the suited connectors like this is that they tend to hit a lot of flops, and you can also
represent a lot of flops that haven't hit your hand. For example, if I raise with 87s and the BB defends with
A5o or 66 and the flop comes KQ2, he's going to fold that nearly always. If you can't get your opponent to
fold, you're still going to hit a fair number of flops and can take free cards where needed. I find the middling
aces to be less worthwhile in this regard because they don't hit a lot of flops, and you tend to get credit for
the ace anyway.
In other words, if I have 87s versus say A7s ... I think I gain more on the 853 flop than I lose on the KQ2
and the A63 flop, since my folding equity will be high on the KQ2 and the A63 flops anyway. Also, though
this seems perverse, in certain ways it's easier to respond to aggreesion with a hand that *doesn't* have a lot
of showdown value. If I get check-raised on the flop my decision is usually very clear with a suited
connector - either I have enough outs to call down or play back at him, or (more often) I don't, and can fold
without giving anything up. With the Ax hand, I'm more vulnerable to semi-bluffs since I'll sometimes have
just three outs but will other times be folding the best hand. With 87s, I'll sometimes be folding incorrectly
(for example if my opponent check-raises with K6s), but I'll very rarely be folding the best hand at the time
(as I would be with Ax if my opponent check-raised with say a queen-high four flush. So I think it makes
me less vulnerable to fundamental theorem sort of mistakes.
The point about opponents being to correct to call down with ace high is a valid one, and I'll sometimes run
into trouble against opponents who do a lot of check-calling, but in a smart way where they know the sorts
of boards on which their hand is likely to have a fair amount of equity. Still, if opponents are calling down
too liberally it's going to cost them, as *most* of my raises come from hands with high card power, or
which have been improved by the board at some point.
Finally, I think there's some benefit to controlling the middle part of the deck. If your opponent thinks it's
safe to check-raise an 853 flop because you "certainly" have ace-high or two overcards, that can create a lot
of problems, especially if your opponent is also quick to check-raise with legitimate hands. I suspect that
your solution to these sorts of situations to play back at people sometimes with a high-card hand, which is
easier to do when you have the failsafe of showdown value, but I find that uncomfortable a lot of the time
against very aggressive opponents who are willing to put several bets in with a draw or something like
bottom pair. On the other hand, I'd certainly rather have A7s than 87s if my opponent check-raises
something like a TT5 rainbow flop. Pick your poison, I guess.
Settle this discussion, please.
250
Buckshot
Boring or Interesting?
I was talking with a fellow 2+2er about this hand. Was it well played and boring or played poorly and
interesting? Or was it something of both?
Party Poker 15/30 Hold'em (10 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is BB with K , Q .
UTG calls, 2 folds, MP1 calls, 2 folds, CO calls, Button calls, SB completes, Hero raises, UTG calls, MP1
calls, CO calls, Button calls, SB folds.
Flop: (11 SB) 6 , A , 3 (5 players)
Hero checks, UTG checks, MP1 checks, CO bets, Button raises, Hero folds, UTG folds, MP1 folds, CO
calls.
Luke
Looks fine to me. I can't really see playing it any other way.
With a player or 2 less on the flop, a bet/fold to a raise would be fine but given 4 opponents, your line is
OK.
Edit: Oh, and not raising preflop would be pretty bad, IMO.
JeffO
There are 11 SB in the pot. If you bet,will you get all four opponents to fold more than once out of eleven.
Bet the flop.
surfdoc
Are you kidding? The chance of getting all to fold is close to zero. The chance of getting raised is much
greater. You are basically making the argument to autobet any flop (with a scare card) when you raised
from the blind which is pretty bad advice IMO.
Edit: Damn, I hate typing a response and having Nate weigh in on the other side. Meh.
Nate tha' Great
I guess this is ... literally about the best flop that KQ spades can hope for in spite of missing utterly and
completely. You should be able to pick up the pot (sometimes requiring a follow-thru on the turn) most of
the times that nobody has an ace, diamond draw, or some other strong hand like a set. How often will that
be? Not very often. But probably more often than 1 time in 12. And it's not like you have a decision to make
if it's raised. So bet. What the hell. There, I've almost convinced myself.
rigoletto
Bingo! I like this response particularly because: "And it's not like you have a decision to make if it's raised."
surfdoc
Bingo! I like this response particularly because: "And it's not like you have a decision to make when it's
raised.”
Fixed your post. Sometimes I feel like I am watching/playing in a completely different game. This quote
from Barry seems like the game I am seeing:
If you raise PF and it's all rags, they'll always put you on AK and raise the flop. If there's an A on the flop,
they'll put you on a pair smaller than A's and raise the flop.
251
The good news with this is that you'll get paid off big with a monster, but it makes the so/so hands harder
to play than in the more passive games at the lower limits.
rigoletto
I dunno. It seems that posters who are always yelling: "they will never fold" are also the people who will
never bet or raise in these kind of situations. So how do they know!
I put more faith in reputed posters who say 'I bet here every time', at least they know what they are talking
about.
surfdoc
I put faith in the reputed posters also but there are some good players on both sides here and amazed that
each side thinks this one is easy. I am really just trying to soak it all in to get to the point of beating this
game up.
stoxtrader
leading or folding the flop is fine, neither can possible be a big mistake.
if there is 1-2 calling stations of the 4, or fish, then a flop fold outright is the play.
ike
I think this flop is close to an autobet. Limpers usually have bad hands, thats why you raised preflop, now
bet out and watch all the random broadway cards and shitty pairs fold. Even if there are some total calling
stations in the hand you should still lead this flop. If they call, bet the turn too. A very significant percentage
of the time this flop doesn't give anyone any pairs and they're gonna be hard pressed to randomly play back
at you with QT.
Barry
I was the hero in this hand. The only reason that it came up was I was explaining my boring losing session
to Buckshot yesterday. No cards or when I did have a decent starting hand I utterly missed the flop in a
multiway pot.
I find it somewhat interesting, that it was found somewhat interesting and that many people advocate betting
the flop as I thought that the play of this hand was straightforward.
Perhaps this is too Ciaffone & Brier, but I didn't think that there was any chance of taking it down on the
flop and there was a high likelyhood of the flop being raised either by an A or by the flush draw. Betting the
flop was pretty close to just tossing a SB.
James282
I guess this is ... literally about the best flop that KQ spades can hope for in spite of missing utterly and
completely. You should be able to pick up the pot (sometimes requiring a follow-thru on the turn) most of
the times that nobody has an ace, diamond draw, or some other strong hand like a set. How often will that
be? Not very often. But probably more often than 1 time in 12. And it's not like you have a decision to make
if it's raised. So bet. What the hell. There, I've almost convinced myself.
My thoughts exactly. I'd definitely bet the flop and do so routinely.
kurosh
You would follow through with a turn bet too? Depending on how many call?
James282
Very dependent on how many call, and who they were.
bernie
I find it somewhat interesting, that it was found somewhat interesting and that many people advocate
252
betting the flop as I thought that the play of this hand was straightforward.
It is str8 forward. Many players blow chips betting into this flop with this hand. You missed. Big time. Easy
check fold.
SA125
Betting the flop was pretty close to just tossing a SB.
Last time I gave a guy a compliment, another guy gave me a little tickle and I went nuclear. Like it's never
happened before. Bad day, and night. And following day, etc.
Anyway, TSP said you're one of the most underated posters on the site and I agree. You're right, auto
betting bad flops after raising pf is a leak.
sublime
Perhaps this is too Ciaffone & Brier, but I didn't think that there was any chance of taking it down on the
flop and there was a high likelyhood of the flop being raised either by an A or by the flush draw. Betting
the flop was pretty close to just tossing a SB.
this is perfect
bobbyi
I dunno. It seems that posters who are always yelling: "they will never fold" are also the people who will
never bet or raise in these kind of situations. So how do they know!
I put more faith in reputed posters who say 'I bet here every time', at least they know what they are talking
about.
I am not a "reputed poster", but I used to automatically bet in this spot. Every time. And in a wide range of
other scenarios where I was in the blind and missed the flop (or caught a small piece). "They only have to
fold 1 time out of X. Why don't I stick my dick in there and see what happens?" I have finally finally come
to see that there really are times that it's just not worth it, and I think this is one of them.
Nate tha' Great
Two things:
1) I think people are getting on the soapbox a little about the futility of autobetting any flop after a preflop
raise, and not really considering the texture of *this particular flop*.
2) There's also a bit of cognitive dissonance in this scenario because it's hard to convince oneself that
something that fails 10 times out of 11 is nevertheless the correct play.
surfdoc
cognitive dissonance
1. English only at the tables please sir.
2. Good point
3. What type of flops would you just check fold other than super coordinated 678 monotone not your suit
type flops?
Nate tha' Great
3. What type of flops would you just check fold other than super coordinated 678 monotone not your suit
type flops?
253
Like A87 would be a bad flop.
bobbyi
I think people are getting on the soapbox a little about the futility of autobetting any flop after a preflop
raise, and not really considering the texture of *this particular flop*.
I can't speak for others, but my statement was based on the texture of this flop. What else would I be basing
it on? I wasn't saying that one should never bet on the flop when the pot is large. That would obviously be
ridiculous. I was saying that I don't think this particular spot is good. I used to think so. If you asked me six
months ago, I would have said that checking here is a big mistake because with an ace-high flop and us as
the preflop raiser, we have a good (enough) shot of taking it down. The chance of anyone else having an ace
isn't terribly high since eveyrone else in the pot elected to limp and many ace hands would raise. Anyone
with something like 9 T clearly can't call (but is in reality making a mistake by folding against our
hand) and even a mid pocket pair is in bad shape because we probably have AK/AQ or a big pair leaving
him with two outs, and even if we don't, he has the rest of the field to worry about. Also, the other two cards
on board (besides the ace) are really unlikely to have connected with anyone's hand.
I don't think this way anymore. Even though it seemed to make sense that ace high flops should be good
betting opportunities, the truth is that people play lots of ace hands, even for a limp and an ace is out there
much more often than I used to think. Further, there is a two flush on board. With all these people, the
chance of having a flush draw is reasonably high. You said before that this is "literally about the best flop
that KQ spades can hope for in spite of missing" and I don't agree at all. The best flops are going to be
rainbow. The two flush here makes it hard to steal, as does the ace. Yes, there are worse flops (for example,
if the offsuit card here were the ace instead of the six or if the mid and low cards were 89 instead of 63), but
this definitely is not that great a stealing flop.
There's also a bit of cognitive dissonance in this scenario because it's hard to convince oneself that
something that fails 10 times out of 11 is nevertheless the correct play.
For a long time that is how I would rationalize this bet. I would bet and get raised and three-bet and would
just shrug and say, "well, it only has to work once in a while". The next six times I would try it it would fail
and I would say "sure it seems like this is a losing play based on past experience, but really it just has to
work once in a while". Then it would fail another five times. Maybe once in twenty times it would work.
And then I would say "ah, see it really does work in a while. All those failures are worthwhile". And now
the next twenty times that it failed I would say "yes, but remember the time it worked". Yeah, it's hard to see
whether something is really working 1 out of 12 times. That's why I had the habit of betting these flops for
years. I finally have come to see that sometimes a bet really won't work one of twelve times, and I don't
think this one will, although it is close.
The other problem is that everyone does not decide simultaneously whether to continue. If they did, it
would be likely enough that no one would want to chance his hand against the field including the pf raiser.
But instead, people fold one by one. So even if you get the first few people to fold (which you usually do),
by the time it gets to the last or even the penultimate guy he starts thinking "well [censored], there are
thirteen bets in the pot and I only have one (or two) guys to beat", and you get played with by a guy with 88
who tries to push you off a bigger pair by representing an ace or who knows what else.
rigoletto
Your responses does make some sense, but the disagrement really boils down to the flop texture, and
actually just the flush draw. If that wasn't there we would agree. I still think a bet is worth it most of the time
and I also think that when this line backfires on people it is mostly because they tend to continue their bluff
when they just get called.
Another important thing is you image: you need a Tight image to do it.
254
bobbyi
the disagrement really boils down to the flop texture, and actually just the flush draw. If that wasn't there
we would agree.
Absolutely. I wouldn't have even posted anything if the flop were rainbow. I think a bet would be clear
there.
Another important thing is you image: you need a Tight image to do it.
Yeah. That's how I got in the habit of making these bets in the first place. When I used to play only b&m,
everyone knew me (the local 20/40 has a fairly small player pool and I played several times a week) and I
had a very tight image. This allowed me to steal way way more than my fair share of pots. So these bets
were routine. When I would see people here who wanted to push up their vpip's I didn't understand because
so much of my profit came from the pots that my tight image allowed me to steal. But now that I'm playing
on party, things are different. Online, these best just aren't working for me. They had become so ingrained
in me, that it has been a hard habit to break.
Nate tha' Great
Okay, let me try and quantify this:
Let's assume that all four opponents are limping with roughly the same range of hands, as I've specified
below.
Aces, four-flushes and sets ("bad" hands)
ATs (3)
A9s (3)
A8s (3)
A7s (3)
A6s (2)
A5s (3)
A4s (3)
A3s (2)
A2s (3)
AJo (9)
ATo (9)
A9o (9)
A8o (9)
66 (3)
33 (3)
KJd (1)
KTd (1)
K9d (1)
QJd (1)
QTd (1)
Q9d (1)
JTd (1)
J9d (1)
T9d (1)
T8d (1)
98d (1)
97d (1)
87d (1)
76d (1)
255
65d (1)
Total: 82
Other plausible limping hands ("good" hands)
99 (6)
88 (6)
77 (6)
55 (6)
44 (6)
22 (6)
KJs (no flush draw) (2)
KTs (2)
K9s (2)
QJs (2)
QTs (2)
Q9s (2)
JTs (3)
J9s (3)
T9s (3)
T8s (3)
98s (3)
97s (3)
87s (3)
76s (3)
65s (3)
KQo (6)
KJo (9)
KTo (9)
QJo (9)
QTo (9)
JTo (12)
Total: 129
So about 61% of the hands are "good" hands and the other 39% are "bad" hands.
The odds of all four opponents having a good hand is 61% raised to the fourth power, which is about 14%.
This analysis has some limitations. The opponents' holdings aren't independent of one another, and so if
opponent A does not hold an ace, it becomes slighty more likely that opponent B does hold an ace. Also,
some of the "good" hands like 76s (no diamond draw) or 88 may peel a card here or even play back at us.
There's some chance that someone will raise as a pure bluff.
On the other hand, we're ahead at present against all but a couple of the flush draws, and might well be able
to get to showdown for one more bet against them.
I still think it's worth betting.
SA125
Nate, I have a tremendous amount of respect for your intellect and analytical insights into the game. But I
see why Ray Zee always seems to to downplay these scenarios. They just aren't realistic. You can thoerize
any range of hands you want. Loose players are more tied to any kind of A than their own children and,
when one hits in a 5-6 way pot, a missed KQ flop is almost always bananas.
256
Nate tha' Great
Is my hand range implausible?
Is it hard to believe that, around 14% of the time, nobody has an ace, four-flush, or set?
What's unrealistic about my assumptions?
ActionBob
My gut says that your hand range is much too narrow. The limping range you give looks like one of a
"relatively" tight player. Now I'm not talking a tight aggressive high caliber player, but your range is really
all suited connectors, most aces, and relatively coordinated high cards. This is most likely the range of a
"tighter" limper.
I understand you started the initial post with "Let's assume that all four opponents are limping with roughly
the same range of hands, as I've specified below", but I don't this this range is even close for 4 typical Party
limpers.
adios
One thing that many aren't taking into account is that when your opponent doesn't have an Ace, spiking a K
or Q can often win it for you. Strangely though I like the line that our hero took on this hand as I'm guessing
it's higher EV to check and see what action develops after you. Nobody is going to slow play a hand with
the pot being so big and if a late player to act bets you may be able to get in a check raise (a risky play)
getting the pot heads up if you suspect your opponent doesn't have an Ace.
This play is somewhat similar to a play recommended in HFAP that was perhaps still is quite controversial
on this forum awhile back. The key difference between this situation and the situation in HFAP is that in
HFAP hero bets his/her gutshot with an Ace showing to eliminate overcards, perhaps overpairs, and other
undesirable hands. In the situation in this thread there are no overcards that will fold to a bet and such thus
you wont clean up as many outs by betting.
SA125
You're out of position the rest of the hand. I think more money will be lost than won overall by betting out
instead of check/folding in that particular spot.
Trying to figure the range of hands of 4 random limpers to justify the EV of it doesn't seem as realsitic as
what your experience with that hand, that scenario and that flop is. Which is that you're probably toast. If
others say it's not, than they should know. I agree with hero that you are.
rigoletto
I don't really care about the rest of the hand. The discussion is about folding the field.
SA125
I think more money will be lost than won overall by betting out instead of check/folding in that particular
spot.
77
257
Nate tha' Great
Party Poker I raise 7 7 from UTG and am 3-bet by a good TAG player who probably respects me in
UTG+1. Her range here is almost certainly AK, AQ, 88-AA or something similar. Everyone else folds and I
call.
Flop K
9
6
I check and call intending to check-fold the turn if I don't improve.
Chris Dow
Since you don't have the 7h it's quite marginal to even go to the turn, I don't think you can.
CallMeIshmael
Nate,
in this game, is AQ an automatic bet on the turn for villian? (assuming a blank)
I dont really know the dynamic of how this game plays, but, if you could expect a check a decent portion of
the time, the math of the situation would probably change a lot. (especially considering AQ is now her most
likley hand)
Nick C
I'm thinking she must be checking behind on the turn sometimes. (Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand the
play.)
Edit: Do you have bluffing outs that count as "improvement," maybe?
Nate tha' Great
Edit: Do you have bluffing outs that count as "improvement," maybe?
I'm not anticipating attempting to bluff against this opponent.
Chris Dow
You also can't possibly be expecting the opponent to give up with AQ and give you a showdown just
because you called the flop.
Nate tha' Great
How often does she need to check behind the turn with AQ to make my call +EV?
How often does she need to check behind the turn with TT to double my chances of spiking a set?
chesspain
With that K-high flop, you don't think you could get her to drop 88/TT/JJ/QQ?
Nate tha' Great
If she bets the turn with one of those hands and I check-raise, I might be able to get her to drop, but that is
IMO too expensive, especially since I think she'll often check behind with her weaker hands.
If she checks behind on the turn, I think it becomes very difficult to bluff her off a better hand on the river.
I could also check-raise the flop, but she's probably expecting me to check-call the flop if I actually have
something like KQ or KJs, which makes me vulnerable to a call down or even a bluff 3-bet.
sthief09
How often does she need to check behind the turn with AQ to make my call +EV?
258
How often does she need to check behind the turn with TT to double my chances of spiking a set?
what happens if the turn goes check-check? you still have to check-fold the river, right? I would assume
she'll check it down with AQ though unless she hits.
Nate tha' Great
That's a dilemma unto itself. I'd probably look her up on the river unless an A or a Q hit.
Chris Dow
As you can see nate, the potential dilemma of check/check turn, check/call river while honestly a big dog
(albeit maybe not a big enough dog not to call), is seriously detracting from your odds on the flop. As
you've mentioned you're never bluffing out the overpairs, when you're against an AQo you by default give
free cards to beat you, when you hit your set you occasionally run into top set and cr right into it (or AhAc
redraws and 4 flushes the river). Because this pot developed hu I don't think it is big enough for you to
continue on. The situation is so complex that I haven't crunched specific numbers and am giving opinions
based on feel. I'm sure you can do the same, and clearly regardless of the hand your opponent actually has,
the more passive that opponent will be, the better your flop call gets. Specifically if a hand like TT will
check/check behind without improvement but will definitely call a bet if you spike a 7 on the river (which I
think would pretty obviously be the case here) then you're gaining a lot.
Nate tha' Great (Analysis)
I think this is kind of an important hand. One of the changes I've made recently is to make some seemingly
"loose" calls out of position on the flop and on the turn when I think there's a reasonable chance of my
opponent checking it behind on the next street. It can help for the board to be a little bit scary in order for
me to make these calls.
For example, say that I defend my BB against a CO open-raise with 7
6
, and the flop is T
T
5
.
Note that I have some legitimate outs here: a backdoor flush, a backdoor straight, and probable pairing outs.
You can make an argument for a call on this basis alone, even if you knew that your opponent was going to
bet the turn, regardless of what he held. However, you should almost certainly peel here, because your
opponent will often check behind on the turn, fearing a check-raise from trips. That is, I'll often be getting
two cards for the price of one, making the call quite profitable.
More often, this will involve a situation in which there is some chance that you have the best hand, and also
some chance that you will improve if you do not have the best hand.
For example, let's say that I'm again in the BB, defending against a Cutoff open-raise from a solid, thinking
player. My hand is 9 8 and the flop is 8 5 3 .
I check-raise the flop and my opponent calls.
The turn is the K
. I bet and my opponent raises. There are around 7 BB in the pot at this point.
If my opponent does in fact have the King, I will usually have five outs to beat him, which is not quite
enough to call with getting 7:1. However, I also believe that my opponent is capable making this play with
some other overcard hand like AQ. When he does this, he will usually check behind on the river, especially
since the flop contains some draws and his hand would beat a busted draw at showdown. If he checks
behind the river even a small percentage of the time, calling the turn goes from slightly unprofitable to
highly profitable. So I should almost certainly make this call on the turn. Against a particularly aggressive
opponent, of course, I would want to call down on the river anyway, especially if another big card does not
come off, but there are lots of folks against whom I suspect calling the turn and folding to a river bet is the
correct play.
259
This 77 hand is another, somewhat more complicated example of this principle. Suppose that I've pegged
my opponent's hand range correctly. The only hand that I beat is
AQ (16 combos)
Whereas I lose to
AK (12 combos)
AA (6)
KK (3)
QQ (6)
JJ (6)
TT (6)
99 (3)
88 (6)
Or 48 total combos. That is, I believe my sevens are the best hand about 16/64 or 1/4 times.
I also will usually have around 3 outs to improve if I do not have the best hand, between spiking a set and
backdoor straight possibilities. Of course, sometimes I will hit a 7 and lose to a set of kings or nines, or a
flush. On the other hand, if I do spike a 7, and my opponent has something like AK or AA, the implied odds
situation is pretty favorable. I think 3 outs is a reasonable working estimate.
How many outs to I need to make a correct call here on the flop?
There are around 8.25 SB in the pot once my opponent bets. As it works out, I need almost exactly 5 outs
worth of equity in order to make the call profitable.
As we've discussed, I have about 3 "legitimate" outs here that come from spiking a seven or making a
backdoor straight, meaning that I have to make up 2 outs somehow in order for the call to be correct.
The question I posed earlier was: how often does my opponent need to check behind AQ on the turn in
order for my call to be profitable? As I hope you will see, the answer is: not very often. For example,
suppose that my guess is that my opponent will check behind AQ on the turn just 1/4 of the time here. How
much is this worth in terms of outs?
We're looking at a parlay here: my opponent needs to have AQ (1/4 of the time) *and* she needs to check it
behind (1/4 of the time). All told, this will happen just 1/16 of the time.
This seems like a longshot, but it is actually worth a little something. A 1/16 shot is equivalent to 3/48, or
about a 3-"out" draw with 47 unseen cards to come. So now I have 3 legitimate drawing outs, plus about 3
checking behind outs, for a total of 6, which is more than I need to make the call profitable. In practice, I
believed that my opponent would check behind with AQ more often than one in four times here, as this is
one of the worst conceivable boards for AQ against a tightish UTG raiser. If she checked behind with AQ
say half the time here, then folding would be a huge mistake.
Of course, sometimes my opponent will take her free card, and spike an A or a Q on the river to win her the
pot. This is one of the things that I just have to live with, as I will not be ahead often enough to justify
making a play at the pot and preventing free cards. On the other hand, there are a couple of other
devlopments that could work out favorably for me:
1) My opponent could check behind with something like TT on the turn, hoping to see a cheap showdown,
doubling my chances to spike a 7 and making it cheaper for me to draw to a straight.
2) I could pick up a gutshot or OSED on the turn and call a bet from my opponent, and win some additional
percentage of the time if I don't improve, but she decides to check behind her AQ on the river.
260
I'd guess that these scenarios are worth an additional 1.5 or 2 outs all on their own.
There is also an important point to be considered here from the standpoint of the villian. Note that I am
willing to be bluffed off the pot on the turn, if she's prepared to follow through and again bet her AQ.
However, because my sense based on her previous play was that she'd often check behind this board with
her AQ, she made it correct for me to make a loose peel on the flop. That is, if my opponent were more
relentlessly aggressive, I would probably not have peeled on the flop, even though against an extremely
aggressive opponent with a wider 3-betting range, there would be more chance that I had the best hand at
present.
In poker, there are a certain set of plays that are made frequently by very good opponents, and are also
made frequently by very bad opponents, but are not made as frequently by average-good opponents.
Making a loose peel on the flop is one such play. A fish will call your bet on the flop with a wide range of
hands because he isn't thinking about pot odds and doesn't put any stock in your "automatic" flop bet, but a
very tough player may make some loose peels as well because he recognizes that the aggression he's shown
you in other hands will frequently intimidate you into checking behind on the turn, giving him a free card, a
cheap showdown, or possibly even a profitable bluffing opportunity.
Against both of these types of opponents, you should be more inclined to bet the turn rather than take a free
card or cheaply pick off a bluff at showdown, even if you believe that there's a good chance that you're
drawing. Of course, you will get check-raised sometimes by a hand that you're drawing live against, or even
get check-raised occasionally by a worse hand that has picked up some sort of semibluff or otherwise senses
weakness. But over the long run, you will probably give away more pots by playing the turn too meekly
than by playing it too strong.
Klepton
this is an amazing post, it now makes sense, but i believe this should only pertain to the limits of 15-30 and
up, as low limit players (and still many at the party 15) still bet the turn if checked to no matter what.
not many players 'give up' like you say they do...most bet the turn regardless and then check the river UI so
their nut no pair gets to showdown
but seriously, amazing post
thekiller
What if the king was an ace, what would u do then?
Nate tha' Great
Check-fold.
Chris Daddy Cool
this is an amazing post, it now makes sense, but i believe this should only pertain to the limits of 15-30 and
up, as low limit players (and still many at the party 15) still bet the turn if checked to no matter what.
i dont think this is true at all because lower limit players tend to be LESS aggressive than the party 15/30
players and is likely to check behing way more hands than you'd expect him too.
i'll often peel on the flop like nate says and if i have a showdownable hand i'll often peel on the turn too with
the knowledge that people tend to not value bet rivers enough.
Lost Wages
How does this line compare to your alternatives? There are ~7SB in the pot on the flop. If your opponent
would fold AQ or 88 half the time then you have a profitable flop bet:
261
EV = (11/64)*(7) + (53/64)*(-1) = +.38SB
Nate tha' Great
Unless I've established a history with this player, it's hard for me to represent enough strength by just
gaybetting here.
theBruiser500
if she checks behind on the turn with AQ and then bets the river can you call? will she bet AQ on the river?
if so that seriuosly diminsihes your "3 outs"
Danenania
I think a big majority of tag players who would check behind with AQ on the turn would also check it on
the river. If they wanted to bluff they'd bet the turn.
sthief09
in all honesty, this easily ranks as one of the 5 best posts I've read on 2+2, ahead of a lot of the famous Ed
Miller posts. it is such a tough position to be in (IMO the second toughest behind blind defense) and you
gave such a thorough analysis. this is an instant classic, and anyone who didn't get it needs to read it over
and over and over until they do
Other Threads
What is this?
262
Any poster whose thread I got to recently, or who I don’t have a lot of thread from has their threads listed in
here. They are in alphabetical order by thread title. There are a lot of big name posters whose advice is
contained in the section, so don’t overlook it just because it has a gaggle of authors instead of a single
common one.
Who is getting a section later?
bisonbison
Nate tha’ Great
Clarkmeister
sthief09
Will all definitely have their own sections in a later iteration of this. I’m planning on doing quite a few
others as well, but I haven’t put sufficient time into searching through the archives for their posts.
Please let me know if there are any others who you would like to see a section from, and send me a list of
threads you like if that’s possible.
Another Turn Fold
arfsananto
Another hand where I folded the turn and not sure if I should have.
263
Stars, .05/.10, 10 players. No specific player reads, but for the few hands that I've been at this table, there
has been -no preflop raises, very little post flop raising
-4-5 (or more) see each flop
-2-3 (at least) to each showdown
Hero is MP2 with K
9
UTG calls, EP1, EP2 fold, MP1 calls, Hero calls, MP3,CO, and Button call, BB checks, SB completes. One
big happy family to the flop.
Flop
3 8
K
BB, SB, UTG check; MP1 bets, Hero raises (Mainly because I may have the best hand; and if I don't, now
is the time to find out), MP3 calls, CO calls, BB calls all-in, SB & UTG fold. MP1 3-bets, Hero calls, MP3
and CO call.
Turn 5
MP1 bets, I fold.
My thinking here is: a. He told me with his flop reraise that he could beat top pair. b. I didn't improve on the
turn. c. I have to improve to beat him, and he has just as much chance to improve on the river as I do.
So I folded.
Results:
River was 6
, MP1 showed K
3
Saborion
I too sure would`ve loved to fold there, but I`ve been told I fold too much. Let`s get MK here and get his
opinion on this matter.
crockpot
man, stars .05/.10 is only 40-50%/flop? that place is a breeding ground for tightness.
this is an okay hand in a loose-passive game, so the preflop call is fine. in most games, however, you should
fold it unless it's an unraised pot and you're in very late position.
i think you played the hand well from then on. on the flop you are certainly beaten when reraised, but you
have odds to catch a nine, and a king may be an out.
i question your "he has just as much chance of improving as i do" logic, even though the turn fold was
correct. although you must factor in your oppponent's chances of improving to beat you in most hands, but
this is not really the case when you suspect you are beaten anyway, unless you meant it in a "if i AM ahead,
he may draw out on ME" sense.
arfsananto
Thanks for the input, Saborion. That was what I was feeling when I posted it.
Crockpot, what I meant was, I'm assuming that to win, I have to improve, and he has to not improve; (I'm
thinking of the hand as effectively headsup here), and he is just as likely to improve as me, therefore the
possible outcomes are: we both improve; he does but I don't; I do but he doesn't... I lose in 2 of the 3. Is this
the right way to figure it?
Thanks for the input.
264
crockpot
yes and no. your analysis is good for situations where you aren't sure if you have the best hand. in cases
where you are sure you are beaten (and by that i mean sure enough to fold to the river bet if you don't
improve), you should only consider:
- the chances you will improve
- the chances that if you improve, he will improve more
so you're close to the correct answer, it just doesn't matter whether he improves any more when you don't.
here, this is important, as you correctly realized a king may not be an out for you.
arfsananto
I see; thats an important distinction. Thanks alot
Ed Miller
My thinking here is: a. He told me with his flop reraise that he could beat top pair. b. I didn't improve on
the turn. c. I have to improve to beat him, and he has just as much chance to improve on the river as I do.
So I folded.
Notice that none of these reasons included the pot size. They are all true if the pot has $1 million in it.
Would you fold then?
You folded a nine outter getting 12-to-1. Do you think it was a good fold?
I have to improve to beat him, and he has just as much chance to improve on the river as I do.
BTW, what does this mean? This is not stud... you both get the same river card. If you are behind, who
cares how likely he is to improve?
Ed Miller
If the turn card had been a ten instead of a five, I think folding is certainly wrong. Would you have noticed
this subtle difference and adjusted your action accordingly?
I'm guessing from your reasons for folding that you would not have.
Brian462
I agree with all of your logic and especially that the pot size needs to be taken in to consideration in ALL
decisions.
However, I still would have folded in his position because there are enough instances where you are either
drawing slim or dead. The exception would be if I thought my opponent was overaggressive to the point
that my hand still has a chance to be good.
I'd be interested to hear more on this subject.
bisonbison
if the turn was a T instead of a 5...
I can't follow what you're getting at, but I'll bite: If the T pairs, it's a higher two pair than any one his
opponent has?
Unless it's kicker related, I don't see any way it can help Hero's hand.
Brian462
My guess is that when your opponent is on K8 you have more outs on the river where as pairing the 5
wouldn't help.
265
Ed Miller
I can't follow what you're getting at, but I'll bite: If the T pairs, it's a higher two pair than any one his
opponent has?
A ten gives you three more outs to beat K8. An even bigger card like a queen can give you chopping outs
against KT or KJ if one of the low cards pairs on the river. There is a small downside, though.. if your
opponent has K3, then an eight on the turn gives you a chop instead of a win when the turn card is bigger
than your nine.
Ed Miller
For the record, I think this decision is reasonably close. You look to be in pretty big trouble, but the pot is
also pretty big too.
My problem was that none of the reasons our hero gave as to why he folded should convince anyone to fold.
You guys need to get used to thinking, "I have Z outs, and I am getting X-to-1 from the pot," on every callor-fold decision! If you haven't considered the size of the pot, there is no way you can come to an informed
decision.
arfsananto
Majorkong, First let me say thanks. Over the past few days I have shown down (and won more than lost) a
few hands that I would have folded before. And I agree that pot size should always be a factor in decisions
(and discussed in posts). Actually, I did think about the size of the pot here. But unfortunately, it was more
along the lines of "Man, the pot is big...but (for the reasons I gave) I gotta fold", than " I have x outs, the
pot is giving X:1" and still making a considered decision to fold.
Thanks for lots of good input from everyone
Sarge85
If the turn card had been a ten instead of a five, I think folding is certainly wrong. Would you have noticed
this subtle difference and adjusted your action accordingly?
I'm guessing from your reasons for folding that you would not have.
I'll bite.
I have absolutely no idea why a ten landing on the turn affects this hand. Does it mean that I count a Ten as an out because his bottom pair is counterfieted?
Ed Miller
I actually meant when an eight comes on the river, not on the turn.
Flopped set on a suited flop: Cap of fold?
spacemonkey57
What do you think? I know not to call three cold on the flop. Was this play more Ed Miller or Lee Jones?
All comments are appreciated.
Party Poker 0.50/1 Hold'em (8 handed) converter
266
Preflop: Hero is Button with 4 , 4 .
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 2 folds, CO calls, Hero calls, SB completes, BB checks,
Flop: (5 SB) T , 2 , 4 (5 players)
SB bets, BB raises, UTG+1 folds, CO 3-bets, Hero folds
TheCoronaKid
I think you made the right play here. With a bet and TWO raises in front of you, you have to assume
someone has flopped a flush, unless you are at a table full of loose and aggressive players. At this point you
have very little invested in the pot. It's always tough to laydown a set, but here I think you have to get out
and save your money.
That being said, it wouldn't be a terrible move to cap it here because even if someone does have a flush, you
still have 7 outs to make a full house or quads. And it's possible that you are up against naked A and two
pair or something like that. It all depends on your style of play and your read on the other players.
Personally, I would do exactly what you did.
Nate tha' Great
This fold is HORRIBLE. Even if you do not have the best hand, you will make a boat or quads more than
30% of the time, and will get paid off shitloads when you do. You should be capping for value, not folding.
SoCalPat
Pardon me for being harsh, but if anyone is capable of a fold on the flop here for any amount, you need to
give up the game.
You've got 10 outs twice to what should be the best hand. You might even have the best hand now, and are
caught in a war with two players who are vastly overplaying their hands. You're about a 1.5-1 underdog to
improve by the river. Your implied odds are gonzo here. Things will likely slow down on the turn. Only a
stone cold fool would fold here.
If someone has TT, dems the breaks. You're going to pay him off. And I don't care what the final result was,
this was a brainless fold. Neither Miller nor Jones would associate himself with it in any fashion
whatsoever.
Go ahead and cap the flop. You may be behind, but against two other players, you'll improve more than
enough to make up for that extra SB you're putting out on the flop. Call anything on the turn, and if the
action is to you on the river and it's one bet for a showdown, you're calling that, too.
bisonbison
Nate said it, you should read it.
Nottom
Good to see someone actually make a "big laydown" on these boards. Instead, everyone is always raising
and reraising with hands that don't seem to deserve it. You flopped a pretty big hand here with your set of
4s, but with all that action one of them has to have a flush (and if not at least a good draw) so you are almost
certainly behind. You're going to lose this hand more often than you win, so time to get out while the getting
is cheep right.
Luv2DriveTT
You're going to lose this hand more often than you win, so time to get out while the getting is cheep right.
And when you win this unexpected hand then you will probably win more bets than you ever lost by folding
this hand. Be agressive - CAP THE FLOP! And speaking of agressiveness, you should have raised PF. It
will eaither build the pot for your eventual win, or shake out that suited player who just might beat you with
a flush.
267
In da club
Nottom
oh yeah i guess i forgot the
spacemonkey57
Ouch. Thanks for being honest guys. This isn't much of an excuse, but this was actually my third set in
about 200 hands and I dropped big pots with the first two. I wasn't even thinking about my boat outs
because I was positive the board wouldn't pair. I didn't have any reads, but through my first few hands at the
table it looked typical party loose passive, so I didn't think anybody would jam this much with a single
diamond. I guess I should have bit my lip and capped the sucker.
The rest of the thread is more of the same. I assume you get the point by now though.
How did you become a better player??
Kilroy
I, like many, have been lurking in this forum for several months before deciding to post. I have tried to use
the information in this forum along with the books I have read (WLLHE, HFAP, Theory of Poker) but I feel
like I have information overload which results in poor play. With all the information available, I started to
wonder how others became good players. I have about 5M hand in poker tracker and I try to read a book,
(mainly focused on WLLHE) and then go through hands on the poker tracker replayer to find mistakes. I try
268
to cover both losing and winning hands because I have found many winning hands that should have never
been played and many losing hands that could have been winners. I then go play some more (Party .5/1)and
do the same thing. In addition, I check this forum regulary. Unfortunately, my results are going in the wrong
direction. The school of hard knocks is expensive!! Any secrets to learning this game are appreciated. I
would be interested in hearing what methods you chose to improve your play and a priority of the basic skill
you used initially. This fish wants to get some of his money back.
Thanks
bernie
I got turbo TH and ingrained basic preflop play along with basic flop play. First step starts with the starting
hands. Play tighter than you think you should. Then maybe play a little tighter.
This program saved me a ton in learning the basics. More than paid for itself.
JTrue
Play in the micro-limits on Party can be frustrating, my advice is to basically play as tight as possible like
Bernie said, pretty much no matter how tight you play you will get action on your good hands in .5-1.
People are so busy trying to win every single pot that most don't notice how many hands a person is playing.
bernie
Notice i said play tighter until you learn how to play more hands. I basically started with Group 1-4 and
pairs. That was it. I still screw em up.
Many newer players have a problem 'watching' the action and give in. They start playing too many hands.
Some hands are ok to play, but then they screw up postflop with em, negating their value in that texture of a
game. Playing overtight to start has many benefits.
Then when you actually see 3 flops in an orbit, you may question whether you're playing too loose.
sublime
Post hands, and more importantly post your opinion on posted hands. Try to figure out why winning players
do what they do and ask as many questions as possible. Dont be afraid to be *wrong* and just keep playing.
Also like Bernie said its better to err on the side of caution with pre flop hand criteria.
RcrdBoy
Sounds like you are on the right track.
PT, some good reading, practice, and this forum will all help get you there.
Bernie's suggestion of tightening up PF is a good one. You should focus on your hand selection PF and on
your position.
Post any hands that are giving you problems. There are some great posters around here giving out great
advice at a price you can't beat!
B Dids
I just want to second this (*what sublime said). Nothing has done for more my game than letting other
people tell me what I've done wrong or right.
Shalara
Skills I think are important:
Attitude Skills:
1. Discipline! If you don't have discipline, it doesn't matter how many books you read or what you do, it
269
ain't gonna happen. Can't play stuff like A5o from UTG because you have a 'feeling' it's going to win
discipline to play your best game no matter what is the number one most important skill, imo.
The
2. A willingness to learn. Already I've seen people who come here and post and I'm left wondering why they
do. They don't seem to pay attention to any advice at all. And that's okay, but until you're willing to accept
that you might be making mistakes, and to scrupulously examine your game, and what people say about it,
you won't get any better. I haven't been posting here long, but I've seen other people like me who are also
willing to learn, and it shows! They are kicking butt all over the place. It gives me a lot of hope for the
future. This skill runs a close second, I think.
3. Self-Confidence. Whining apprehension gets no-one anywhere in this game! And you have to be able to
pick yourself up after bad runs, too. You can't be aggressive and wimpy at the same time. It takes guts!
Tight but aggressive, all the way. Very important.
Aptitude:
1. Empathy: This skill is the one that lets you read hands, put yourself in other people's shoes. How do you
see them? How do you think they percieve you? Do they seem to even notice that other players at the table?
A good understanding of people makes for good hand-reading skills, a must in on-line poker.
2. Math (Statistics): Very important. What are the odds? I must admit I struggle with this one. I often have
copious notes by my computer. At least once a week, I sit down for hours and do odds problems. Simple
ones at that, I imagine--I've looked in the probabilities section, and frankly, it nearly makes my head
explode. But it's something I have to continuously work on. I've always been a whiz at speed math &
algebra etc, but proportions and statistics are hard. Don't know why.
3. Reasoning: Thinking about the game is important too. Understanding why you make certain plays is vital.
Anticipating players' reactions, looking back to see if a hand could have been played better (whether it won
or not)... all that is important.
No doubt I've missed some; someone will certainly add to it if I have.
Stuff I do to improve:
I read tons. Got Krieger's "More Hold'em Excellence", HEPFAP, ToP, Tournament Poker FAP, WLLH,
Poker for Dummies , "Hold'em Poker" by David Sklansky, and a little orange poker zen thingy, which I
don't think is all that, but it does use lots of Sun Tzu quotes, and has the right attitude. I like it I read
through these books several nights a week. Just whatever catches my fancy at the time.
I use StatKing to record every session, like it or not. I think that documentation is vital to improving the
game. If you don't acknowledge or realize a problem, you can't fix it. (I'll be getting PokerTracker within
the next couple few months, as it looks to be awesome!)
I discuss hands with my boyfriend. He is the only other winning player I know IRL, though I know a few
people that like to play, or even think they are winning players.
He is the one who pointed me to this place (and the one who introduced me to the idea that poker was a
beatable game). I post here if I'm not sure about a hand. Or even if I think I was right, but I'd like to know. I
respond to lots of hands too... if I'm wrong about the way something should be played, I learn why and how.
I'm also exposed to new ideas and thoughts, and I use these to improve.
At .5/1, I stick to pure WLLH. Any deception plays or other interesting nifty things are completely lost on
your opponents. ABC poker is the only way I've been able to beat it. But "Theory of Poker" will give you a
lot of insight into why certain plays work. It is my favorite of all my hold'em books, by far.
Good luck & Welcome
270
jmark
I have about 5M hand in poker tracker
I hope you don't mean 5 Million!
What are your pokertracker stats? (VPIP PFR, aggression factors, etc. etc.) maybe that will give a place to
start looking for leaks.
I started off playing strictly by WLLHE (2nd edition). It was great for me. Sometimes I feel like I owe Lee
Jones some % of my winnings. When I started reading 2+2 I realized I was playing too tight, so I went
overboard and became way too aggressive for the 0.5/1 tables, so make sure you don't make that mistake.
Nemesis
personally i think the micro micro limits might be better than Turbo TH. They will cost you about the same
in all likelyhood, and you get to play against real people.
chief444
I used that program as well when I first started learning (only about 6 months ago...but seems like much
longer):). I think it is a good program for someone just starting out who knows the basics. The advice it
gives is generally good. But there are some flaws with it and some things that it just does not account for.
Good for starting out but once you aquire some experience and improve your game it quickly becomes
obvious that anyone considered a good player would be able to outplay the advice given.
That being said, I feel it was money worth spent as it gave me some sort of playing experience and feel for
the game before having to put any money into play.
Raiser
post your opinion on posted hands.
Very, very good point sublime.
I used to be somewhat "shy" in this regard. I used to be afraid that my thoughts would be wrong and (a) I'd
look stupid or (b) my advice would be harmful to the original poster. But once I got over (a) and started
putting my thoughts out there I started to improve much more quickly. Then I realized that there is no
reason to fear (b) because there are so many knowledgable posters on this site that will correct errors.
and ask as many questions as possible.
Another excellent point by sublime. If you read a HH and don't understand why everyone is saying to raise
on the flop, you should ask. The veteran posters on this site give great advice but are sometimes very brief
with their replies. I'm sure this is because the answer comes so quickly to them, but if it doesn't seem
obvious to you, don't be afraid to ask them to why something is correct. I can guarantee you that you aren't
the only one that doesn't know.
Raiser
One more thing. There are a number of posters on this site that I make an effort to read every post they
make. I will give my list here with the hopes that I don't offend anyone for leaving them out. Others can
reply here if I've overlooked someone.
Ed Miller
Clarkmeister
Joe Tall
Bob T.
Ulysses
Trix
271
Nottom
Mike Gallo
Dyanast
bernie
and more recently
bisonbison
sfer
Of course this list is in no way inclusive of all the great posters here, but it's a good start. Go back and read
the last 100 posts or so by these guys.
sfer
and more recently
bisonbison
sfer
Cool. Thanks.
Add GoT, Louis Landale, Bob T., BigEndian and a ton of others on SS.
Kilroy
Thanks to everyone who responded! I am stunned by the amount of information available on this site but
more importantly by the willingness to share it. I look forward to implementing many of the ideas
expressed in the posts. I am certain with a lot of work and your help I can improve my game considerably.
Thanks again!!
Greg J
I have personally made a post a lot like this one, and was too blown away by how everyone responded and
how cool they were.
and yes since doing that, posting hands, commenting on hands, i think i have become a better player.
I currently play what i consider "nano" limits, and have been for a little less than a month. I'm not cleaning
up, but am ahead overall, and my fluctuations are getting smaller and smaller. Playing is how you REALLY
get better -- it's where the rubber hits the road
post hands, and dont be afraid to post your opinions to hands. if you post an opinion and its wrong, or even
debatable, someone will point it out, but usually in a tactful and constructive way that helps YOU learn. this
forum is really an awesome resource.
LP with Kx-suited
Zetack
PokerStars 0.25/0.50 Hold'em (10 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is Button with 7 , K .
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB
completes, BB checks.
Flop: (7 SB) 4 , 2 , J (7 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 checks, MP3 checks, CO checks, Hero checks.
272
Turn: (3.50 BB) 6 (7 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG+1 bets, MP1 folds, MP3 calls, CO folds, Hero calls, SB calls, BB folds.
River: (7.50 BB) K
(4 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 checks, MP3 checks, Hero ....?
Raise pre-flop?
--Zetack
namknils
This is a tough hand to play. I don't raise preflop and I check it thru on the river. That might be weak, but
your not going to get better hand to fold, and your hand is not very strong.
Tosh
Hero bets.
sfer
Bet the river. I muck preflop. Kxs will regularly be a trouble hand. Stick to Axs and suited connectors in
loose/passive games. The Ace is worth much more than the King.
Joe Tall
You bet the river for value.
I know others limp w/Kxs but I don't. Surely don't raise preflop.
Zetack
I know others limp w/Kxs but I don't. Surely don't raise preflop.
I read the first sentence and I thought you meant raise. So this is a pre-flop fold?
Joe Tall
So this is a pre-flop fold?
Some of us play tighter than Vehn's girlfriend and fold in this situation, yes. Some limp, it's up to you.
Tosh
You can limp this if you are going to play well postflop. The fact that you ask what you should do on the
river suggests you are not ready to play this hand yet.
Joe Tall
Don't get me wrong, I have played it. If I were to choose to play this, I would in your situation as it looks a
family pot is building.
Trix, is correct you need solid postflop skills to play with confindence.
Zetack
I bet the river. SB folded, utg+1 folded, Mp3 called.
Mp3 had J
Tosh
9
and MHIG.
273
Ummm Joe you referring to another post here, Trix hasn't posted on this thread ?
Anyway I agree and stand by what I said, if you are going to play well postflop by all means play but if you
feel you can get into trouble muck until you feel more confident. Whether or not I played here would
depend on the quality of my opponents but normally I'd throw in 1 bet if I didn't expect to be raised.
Trix
You have to play well after the flop to play this hand, but if you do, go ahead, or if you dont mind playing a
slightly -EV hand, cuz you want to learn how to play such hands.
The only one you can be behind here is SB as river checkraises are very rare from turn aggressers at micro.
UTG checked, MP3 would bet if he had a king or better.
Joe Tall
I'm really sorry Tosh,
See how well I read the posts? I suck sometimes, I scan-read and just saw a four letter T-name in Micro. So,
I assumed it was Trix cause it seems like this is his house.
HajiShirazu
I am not a big Kxs fan but I think on the button with 5 limpers, it is good enough. Oh, and you have to bet
this river. They checked to you because they are afraid someone hit a king, which you did.
Zetack
So the consensus seems to be, that if you play the Kx-suited at all here its for a limp. What are we raising
with here besides big cards--medium suited connectors? (counting the BB as a limper for five of em) Axsuited? Nothing?
Vehn (*Vehn came along 3 months later and bumped the thread with this response)
So this is a pre-flop fold?
Some of us play tighter than Vehn's girlfriend and fold in this situation, yes. Some limp, it's up to you.
ack
Clarkmeister
You bet the river for value.
I know others limp w/Kxs but I don't. Surely don't raise preflop.
No way man. I play this hand with a bunch of limpers in a 40-80 game. It is a strongly +EV hand on the
button in this spot in a freaking 2-4 or lower game. In fact, Raising is better than folding IMO. Folding is
simply bad bad bad. Even HPFAP would have you play stuff like Q5s here. K7s is a monster in this spot.
OK, not a monster, but it is in a very +EV situation.
Ed Miller
Bet baby bet! You got three people saying, "Uh oh, I hope the button doesn't have a king."
Ed Miller
So the consensus seems to be, that if you play the Kx-suited at all here its for a limp. What are we raising
with here besides big cards--medium suited connectors? (counting the BB as a limper for five of em) Axsuited? Nothing?
Dude, you play K7s there. I don't know what's up with all this, "Maybe you should fold stuff." This is not
close.
My raising standards in this spot are roughly (give or take a couple of hands on the border):
AA-88,
274
AKs-A7s,
KQs-K9s,
QJs-QTs,
JTs-T9s,
AK-AQ
Clarkmeister
Add in KQ and AJ you puss.
Ed Miller
Add in KQ and AJ you puss.
If you chose to raise with KQ or AJ, I wouldn't argue. I sometimes try not to rock the boat too much, as it
were.
Clarkmeister
It needs rocking. Beat that silly "I'd rather have 56s than AJo" chit out of their heads.
Ed Miller
It needs rocking. Beat that silly "I'd rather have 56s than AJo" chit out of their heads.
I thought we came to a reasonable compromise on this issue for the book. So from now on my advice is
going to reflect that in the book. And the book places this situation right on the edge for raising vs. calling.
Having said that, AJo is clearly a better hand in this spot than 65s, IMO.
Joe Tall
Clark,
It wasn't shortly after this post that I decided that I was button-tight since this post is three months old.
It wasn't less than a month I changed my game to include it (10/20 Fox post)
The board is here to make such adjustments but I didn't know I had to announce them, Kxs is surely a
button limp.
Dieter01
Joe, your link is broken. (fear not, I fixed it for this collection)
On a different note.... Thanks to all you guys for contributing and making such a remarkable effort to teach
us n00bs. That goes especially to Clarkmeister, Dynasty, Ed Miller and Joe Tall. Really appreciate it.
Joe Tall
That goes especially to Clarkmeister, Dynasty, Ed Miller and Joe Tall
I appreciate your sentiments. Have you know that it was these three that taught me everyting I know and I
have modeled my game after their's. I am no where near the caliber of player as the big-three as I'm
improving my game all the time.
Link to K7s post.
I'll keep my eye out for your posts, D. I've been lacking responses lately and hopefully can put some time in
to respond.
Peace,
Joe Tall
275
Taking advantage of dead money or going LAGish?
sfer
I can't open Bison's converter so it's back to Slavic's for this one.
Raise PF? Dumb raise on the turn or routine?
Party Poker 3/6 (10 handed)
Hero has J , 9 and is MP3
MP2(poster) checks, Hero raises, Button folds, SB folds, BB calls, MP2(poster) calls
Flop(6 1/3 SB): J
,5
,3
BB checks, MP2 checks, Hero bets, BB calls, MP2 calls
276
Turn(4 2/3 BB): 7
BB checks, MP2 bets, Hero raises, BB calls, MP2 folds
River(9 2/3 BB): 3
BB checks, Hero bets, BB folds
balkii
I really dont think J9s is enough hand to raise preflop here, unless this is a rather tight table. Given that its
party poker, I'd wait for something better, or a least a later position.
mosch
Personally I'd call this going LAG. J9s is a playable hand in LMP at most party 3/6 tables, but it's not worth
raising pre-flop. If you could expect the big blind and the poster to fold, it would be worth a raise, but I
don't think you can count on an MP poster (or the BB) to fold.
Medium suited connectors are looking for multi-way action in MP, so they can get odds to draw a big hand.
If you enter this hand at all, I think limping is better play.
BugsBunny
Preflop raise, since it may buy you the BT, isn't a bad move.Your hand will win more than it's fair share. I
would, however, probably tend to limp here most of the time (which may be a mistake thinking about it.
You're first in (poster doesn't count) in LP - if the poster wasn't there you would definitely be raising so why
not raise even with the poster)
Turn raise I think is fine, and was probably helped by your preflop raise.
Clarkmeister
Looks fine.
Tosh
You played it well. Nice turn raise.
mosch
When respected 2+2ers disagree with my position, I want to understand why. Usually I can find the
justification for their opinion, but in this case that just didn't happen.
HEFAP talks about raising hands as bad as AJ and KQ here, but it seems to advocate folding here if you
aren't going to get multiway action, or limping if you are. I can't find any notable posts about this move,
either.
Why is this pre-flop raise a good move?
(For what it's worth, I think the rest of the hand is fine, especially given that he's against two hands that are
likely to be relatively weak.)
BugsBunny
As I stated in my response, where I said that even though I think I would limp it would probably be a
mistake:
1) A raise may buy you the button.
2) If the poster wasn't there would you raise this hand or would you limp (remember you're first in)? I think
it's an easy raise - I wouldn't want to fold it. So why should a poster behind you change this thinking? The
hand wins more than it's fair share - even if the BT and both blinds come along. And if you fold everyone
out all the better.
277
If there was a genuine limper behind you then the situation would be different - because you're now no
longer the first one into the pot voluntarily. Then it becomes a matter of who's the limper, from where, etc but as it is the only money in the pot is dead money.
colgin
I like the way you played this. If you knock out the button (and perhaps one or both blinds) you have greatly
improved your chance of winning with just top pair if you hit your jack (as you did). On the other hand, if
the Button cold calls and every one else calls, I don't think you have hurt your implied odds much if your
hand turns out to be a drawing hand. It seems like a pretty thin value bet on the river though.
sfer
I think you're right about the river bet. I'm surprised no one else commented.
Tosh
What is wrong with the river bet ?
Ed Miller
I would, however, probably tend to limp here most of the time (which may be a mistake thinking about it.
You're first in (poster doesn't count) in LP - if the poster wasn't there you would definitely be raising so
why not raise even with the poster)
While I think the preflop raise is fine, you are wrong when you imply that the presence of poster shouldn't
change your strategy much.
Ed Miller
If the poster wasn't there would you raise this hand or would you limp (remember you're first in)? I think
it's an easy raise - I wouldn't want to fold it. So why should a poster behind you change this thinking? The
hand wins more than it's fair share - even if the BT and both blinds come along. And if you fold everyone
out all the better.
While this isn't totally fair, I'll give you a little example to show why your line of thinking (why should the
poster change things, you are first in) is not really helpful.
You are on the button. EVERYONE posts a blind except for you. You have A4o. What do you do? I hope
you don't plan to raise... but why not? You are, after all, first in.
Ed Miller
What is wrong with the river bet ?
Against a thinking player, the river bet is bad. Hero's turn raise has overrepresented his hand. A thinking
player is unlikely to have called the turn raise with a small pair. He probably either has a draw or a jack.
Against a party idiot, though... it's hard to argue against betting the river with almost any hand at all.
Ed Miller
Looks fine.
Learning to play like this (betting and raising on every street with a marginal holding) is a CRUCIAL step
toward crushing these small online games.
Those of you who look at this hand and see overaggression need to reevaluate your games a bit. This is
REQUIRED aggression.
Dynasty
Why is this pre-flop raise a good move?
278
He's in fairly late position and nobody has voluntarily entered the pot. Any hand worth playing is worth
raising with.
Tosh
Against a thinking player I would agree but as you say at Party low limits there is not a particularly high
percentage of thinking players.
BugsBunny
Because A4o isn't going to win more than it's fair share against that many people. Because A4o doesn't play
well multiway - and you know you'll get a bunch of callers in this situation. With the hand in question you
win more than your fair share, even if everyone left plays (and with any subset).
I'm not advocating blindly raising in this situation. If I was UTG I probably still play this hand (due to the
poster), but in that case I would definitely limp. Some rational thought is still required
Joe Tall
HEFAP talks about raising hands as bad as AJ and KQ here, but it seems to advocate folding here if you
aren't going to get multiway action, or limping if you are. I can't find any notable posts about this move,
either.
J9s is going to be a neutral, if not +EV situation versus random hands here. Looks as if our Hero is in the
CO or near to it meaning 3 hands to act behind him which will give him the best hand more than not. I'll
even raise J9s after limpers to mix it up, never mind with such dead money in this pot.
If you choose to play in these situations, you should be routinely raising with them.
Too many fish at one table a bad thing?
mattw
after 60k hands, my results are not what they should be. .75bb per hour playing two tables of .50-1.00 which
is about .37bb per hour for one table.
my first instict is to examine/re-examine my game thinking i am not as good as i think i am. i have
read/studied/worn out all the recommended books and regularly read this site. i am of average intelligence
(suma cum laude).
here's the problem:
i raise UTG w/ pocket aces, get 6 cold callers,(thats the first wtf), 3 go to the river.
senerio 1: fish w/ 9-5 makes 2 pair.
senerio 2: fish w/j-2s makes flush.
senerio 3: fish w/ pr of 4 makes trips on river.
with so many bad players at a table, someone is sure to outdraw you. raises are not respected. when i ask
how can you cold call with such garbage, its only another .50 cents i am told.
279
is 60k hands to small a sample size?
would i do better at a higher limit against players who have brains?
PS: today i ordered zen and the art of poker. maybe it will help me to cope.
any thoughts/suggestions will be helpful. thanks in advance.
PSS: screw the spelling errors, thats not the point.
Tosh
The simple and brutal truth is you are probably not good enough yet. 60k is a long time to have what would
have to be described as mediocre at best results.
Post hands but don't move up until you are sure you have the beating of 0.5/1.
ctv1116
This is the typical "if I played against better players I'd do better" mentality. The fact of the matter is, by 6
people cold-calling your raise, you're making even more off of AA than you should be. For every time you
get bad beat and lose 3.5 BB, you'll win 3 hands for 15 BB
StellarWind
My apologies in advance for being blunt, but you need to hear this.
here's the problem:
i raise UTG w/ pocket aces, get 6 cold callers,(thats the first wtf), 3 go to the river.
senerio 1: fish w/ 9-5 makes 2 pair.
senerio 2: fish w/j-2s makes flush.
senerio 3: fish w/ pr of 4 makes trips on river.
with so many bad players at a table, someone is sure to outdraw you. raises are not respected. when i ask
how can you cold call with such garbage, its only another .50 cents i am told.
This quote shows me your problem in a nutshell. You've read a lot of books and no doubt you have learned
many of the mechanical aspects of successful hold'em, such as not opening EP with QJo and the importance
of betting when you flop top pair, top kicker.
But you do not *understand* poker. You don't know conceptually why the right plays are correct or why
winning players win. You know what winning players do to win but that is not the same thing.
I say this because no one who did understand would dream of discussing pocket aces this way.
Don't try to move up even one level. You will almost certainly get killed. Be glad that you are a winning
player at 0.5/1. That means you have time to work on your game without the pain/pressure of losing.
What to do:
1. Keep reading those books.
2. Especially read Sklansky's books. He's not the only good author, but he is especially good at underlying
concepts.
3. Post hands here for analysis. Feedback is wonderful. This will expose the leaks in your play.
4. Post comments on other people's hands and put some effort into it. Analyzing hands is wonderful
training. Writing down the results of your analysis forces you to organize your thoughts and make them
rigorous. Getting feedback on your analysis from other posters will expose the leaks in your thought
280
processes.
Good luck and remember that if you are making any money at all you are already far ahead of almost
everyone who plays poker with a rake. You can do it.
mattw
the pocket aces is just an example of the patience and disipline to wait for premium starting hands. my flop
% is approx 21% which includes both blinds.
i am just amazed at how often good hands get beat by too many fish playing crap to the river. i feel like i am
out- gunned. (a double barrel shotgun against a posse of 6.) yesterday i saw 9 players see the flop. yes, i was
the only one who folded prefolp.
i guess my point is how can micro limits be crushed as majorkong says when so many bad players are
contesting each and every pot. the game becomes a crapshoot.
5 players cap the betting preflop. there arent that many good starting hands and the best preflop hand is not
likely to win.
Nottom
i guess my point is how can micro limits be crushed as majorkong says when so many bad players are
contesting each and every pot. the game becomes a crapshoot.
This is precisely why these micro-limit games can be crushed.
ElSapo
i guess my point is how can micro limits be crushed as majorkong says when so many bad players are
contesting each and every pot. the game becomes a crapshoot.
Very low-limit, passive games, are not beaten so much by stealing and winning small pots. They are made
by creating large edges for yourself, even when you're behind one player.
This is something which has taken me a really long time to come to understand, and I'm still working on
executing it properly.
The AA is a prime example -- you're not raising to shut people out. Yes, if you raise and all but one fold
you will win the pot far more often than if all of them call. But the times you win the hand when all of them
call, the pot will be mammoth.
The same idea goes for raising suited broadway from the BB or after a lot of limpers in the CO or on the
button. Same idea for medium pairs. You're setting yourself up to win large, multi-way pots. Yes, getting
the small one is definitely a part also, but winning the big pots, with big draws, with the right odds, is the
easy part of LL poker.
Stop slowplaying. If you never did it, I don't know how big of a mistake it would be. This hand just
happened to me -Party 3/6
One limper to me with 86o in the BB. I check.
Flop is A59r, check-check.
Turn is a 7, I bet, he raises, we cap.
River blanks, same action, his AA no good.
He put in $3 when ahead and $48 behind. Slowplaying is only going to cost you in games like these, as a
general rule. People will/may still call and draw out on you. But you must be putting in money while ahead,
less or none when drawing dead, making people pay for their draws, etc. You have a tremendous advantage
over 90% of these players -- you are observant, studious and will know better when to lay down a hand. So
281
many Party players are content to draw thin or dead all day.
The low-limit games, where no one shows agression, even with the second nuts, where everyone limps and
everyone calls, are wiffle ball. Learn to find and push big edges before trying to learn to push the smaller
ones. The big edges, in these games, will get you your 2-3 BB/100 hands against the typical low/micro
opponent.
kenewbie
<disclaimer>
I'm a newbie, I post so people who disagree can discuss my ideas with me, I'm not out to correct anyones
play
</disclaimer>
I often have the same "problem", low limit tables can get about as loose as playmoney it seems. Although I
think it is a problem in the same sense that finding 5000 tons of goldbars in the middle of nowhere is a
logistics "problem".
When I find a table that doesnt respect my raises I stop raising for protection and start raising for value
instead. No need to raise a made hand preflop, but the moment you have a hand that will win, raise for
value. After a few of these hit people tend to notice you, and if the table is stable without too many people
comming and going they will start to honour your preflop raises to a certain degree.
They may be fish but if you play 20% of the flops on a table where the average is 80% and make sure it
hurts them every time they call your raise, they will start to respect you.
Thats my experience atleast.
Nottom
When I find a table that doesnt respect my raises I stop raising for protection and start raising for value
instead. No need to raise a made hand preflop, but the moment you have a hand that will win, raise for
value. After a few of these hit people tend to notice you, and if the table is stable without too many people
comming and going they will start to honour your preflop raises to a certain degree.
Pop quiz:
1) You have AA and raise preflop. What do you want your opponents to do?
kenewbie
Pop quiz:
1) You have AA and raise preflop. What do you want your opponents to do?
I want them to fold.
kenewbie
Just a small reply to my own statement.
The odds of getting dealt any pair preflop is 16:1 . Now assuming you raise all of these and all the
opponents fold, after 10 orbits at a 10 handed table you have gotten and won 6.25 of those hands, thats is
6.25 * 1.5 = 9.375 SB.
On the other hand you have lost (10 * 0.5 SB) + (10 * 1 SB) which is 15 SB.
So although you want your opponents to fold, you dont want ALL your opponents to fold
Jezebel
------------------Pop quiz:
1) You have AA and raise preflop. What do you want your opponents to do?
282
------------------I want them to fold.
k
*BUZZER* Ohh. I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for was call or raise. We have some excellent
parting gifts...
In all seriousness, you want as much money in the pot as possible when you hold a hand like AA. Contrary
to popular belief AA is the best multiway hand in hold'em.
kenewbie
In all seriousness, you want as much money in the pot as possible when you hold a hand like AA. Contrary
to popular belief AA is the best multiway hand in hold'em.
Really? If you raise UTG with AA and the entire 10 handed table calls is that good? If that is the case then
why raise in a tight table where limping will get more money in the pot? (or will raising generally make the
pot bigger than a limp at tight tables?)
I have always (as in my entire 7 days of playing) been raising to protect what is at this point the best hand
around.
Jezebel
Really? If you raise UTG with AA and the entire 10 handed table calls is that good?
Yes, you have the nuts preflop AND you charged hands that thrive on implied odds two bets for the honor
to chase.
If that is the case then why raise in a tight table where limping will get more money in the pot? (or will
raising generally make the pot bigger than a limp at tight tables?)
Well, there is no sense in letting them in cheap, since you have a "made" hand. Your raise is designed more
to ruin their implied odds. If you just limp in you are giving a cheap shot for your opponents to catch up.
When you raise you are charging them to catch up and don't mind them calling since they are paying
double. Limp re-raising can be a viable option with AA if you are pretty sure that it will be raised behind
you. People don't do this to try and get people out. They do it to try and get more money in the pot while
they are the favorite.
sfer
Sometimes you raise to protect your hand. Sometimes you raise because you're profiting the most off every
incremental dollar that goes into the pot. That's true of AA preflop. It wins more than it's fair share, which is
to say more than 1/n times where n is some arbitrarily large number of opponents. I think simulations show
it wins 33% with the entire table going to showdown.
Get AA every hand, raise preflop every hand, have the entire table call and chase you down, and you will
make money.
kenewbie
I've always raising/capping AA preflop. Turns out I've been doing it for the wrong reasons but atleast I've
been doing it
blackaces13
So although you want your opponents to fold, you dont want ALL your opponents to fold
Ken,
283
With AA you don't want ANY of your opponents to fold. You want them to cap it behind you and all call.
That's the dream. Yes, you will lose this hand a lot, and you will lose this to hands like 72o and the like.
However, if this happened everytime you got AA you would make more money than any other situation by
FAR. This includes raising and geting called by only 2 or 3 weak hands, which you seem to think is the
most desirable. Getting called and raised by everyone is WAY better.
Learn this and make sure its burned into your brain. I used to get mad when I raised Aces UTG and got 7
callers. I'd rather only have 2 or 3 opponents I told myself, cause then maybe I'd win. I was WRONG, you'd
rather trade more losses for more money, the sooner you realize this the better off you'll be.
TBone
This post seems to have created quite a stir.
Let me quote the Theory of Poker for everyone. Remember this next paragraph the next time you're
contemplating raising your AK or JJ. The Fundamental Theory of Poker states:
Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played if you could see all your
opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if
you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently
from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their
hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.
If opponents could see your AA, do you think they'd still be inclined to call? Some would yes, (albeit likely
a smaller number) because they don't know the mathematical concepts of the game. Or, they just plain like
to gamble. Either way, they're making a mathematical mistake by calling you, and an even bigger mistake
re-raising your raise. Hence, you'd love to see people raise behind you, AND call because when others make
mathematical mistakes, you make money. (even if you lose a particular hand! In the long run, you make
money playing these people who continually make mathematical mistakes and go against the fundamental
theory of poker)
If you're dealt AA every hand, raise, and all 10 people call the raise, you win 30% of the time. That's 10 BB
pre-flop, and lets say another 8 BB post-flop. (say 5 call on the flop, 2 on the turn, 1 on the river--you've put
in a bet on each of the rounds too) In 10 hands, you win 54 BB total when you win 3 of these hands.
(including the chips you threw in) The other 7 hands, even if you stay til the river and call a river bet, (say
you've got passive people who never raise) given the exact same circumstances as the hands you win, you
lose 1 BB pre flop, 1 SB on the flop, 1 BB on the turn, and 1 BB on the river for 3.5 BB lost for each losing
hand. You lose 7 times in 10 hands. You've lost 24 BB in those 7 losing hands. You've made a net profit of
30 BB.
So, if you're losing when you have such an advantage, you're probably not doing a good job of reading the
others' betting patterns, knowing when you're beat, and laying it down, thus costing yourself more bets. You
may not be playing it aggressively post-flop. You might be reading the board poorly. You might be in a
mathematical downswing. You might be tilting. I lost back to back hands at .50/1 last night when I got AA
in the BB and lost to a rivered straight and KK in the SB the very next hand and lost to two pair. You can
tilt when things like this happen, be glad these players are at your table because they'll wind up giving it
back. When things turn around, you'll make your money.
Tosh
Pop quiz number 2:
The board is K 3
do after you bet ?
9
J
after the turn and you hold A
2
, what do you want your opponents to
Tosh
Of course the answer is you want every opponent you have to put in as many gets as you can take them for,
you have the nuts but when you're dealt 2 aces you also have the nuts.
284
Although exaggerated you have 2 situations where you have the best possible hand, noone is ahead of you,
why not be happy to get as much of your opponents money in the pot while that is true. You'll never win
100% of the time with aces but you won't win 100% of the time with that nut flush on the turn either.
At Party 3/6 AA represents nearly all of my profit for that level, (only over a 10k ish sample) but the point
remains just how valuable those aces are and how happy I am when everybody calls my raise.
Pump the pot or not?
Quercus
Field is loose, with a mix of passive and aggressive but nothing way out of ordinary with the exception of
the button, who is a solid TAG player.
Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is SB with 2 , K .
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 folds, MP1 folds, MP2 calls, MP3 folds, CO calls, Button calls, Hero
completes, BB checks.
Flop: (5 SB) 6 , 5 , T (5 players)
Hero bets, BB calls, MP2 folds, CO calls, Button raises, hero?
If I had some players trapped here, a raise would be easy. But, I'm worried that forcing the two players in
the middle to call two cold will leave me heads up with the button with no one left to pay off my draw. Call
correct here?
The other thing that went through my mind was that TAG was likely on a weak holding since he just limped
in to the pot. Unsuited overcards or a mid pair seemed most likely. A 3 bet here would probably give me the
opportunity to try a steal on a turn blank, but overall that just seemed like a riskier, lower EV strategy.
285
A_C_Slater
Pump it! Pump it!
You have to remember that you also have a K overcard to go along with the flush draw. And while the flush
may not hit on the turn or river a K could and raising to eliminate the other players will increase the chances
of your Kings holding up. The pot is already big. Focus your intent on winning it.
chesspain
The other thing that went through my mind was that TAG was likely on a weak holding since he just limped
in to the pot. Unsuited overcards or a mid pair seemed most likely.
I seriously doubt that a TAG is raising three players on this flop with either of these types of holdings.
Shillx
If everyone will fold when you 3-bet/bet the turn, by all means go for it. If you think the button has a weak
holding, then I don't mind just calling here. The hero shouldn't mind if the button will take a free card on
4th. I would stop and go if you hit here, and hope that the button raises to trap the callers for multiple big
bets.
Brad
helpmeout
I'd rather win a big pot than lose a small one, this pot is not big.
A solid TAG isnt raising trash here, he could easily have a set maybe ATs KTs 87s.
You could make TP and still lose, keep the weak players in and play for your flush.
You are also out of position so raising does nothing to help you except lose customers.
A_C_Slater
Why couldn't the TAG have AT? Or a flush draw? This pot is big with 5 players in and all the called bets
on the flop. What is your view on what constitutes a big pot?
sthief09
since when do TAGs raise the field with overcards or underpairs? I thought that's what LAGs did... he's
probably got top pair or better, or a good draw. I call, to not shut out the other two. I want them there to pay
me off when I frush them
A_C_Slater
Does the King overcard mean nothing to you? This is a prime example of "buying outs" and it must be
exploited ruthlessly. You must give hands like KJ a chance to fold.
Clarkmeister
I agree. This is a prime spot to make better kings fold.
If they all call 2 more, that's great. If they fold, that's great too. Plus, you are real unlikely to get raised on
the turn when you bet, so it doesn't cost you anything there since you were going to call a turn bet anyways.
This is an easy 3-bet followed by a turn bet.
sthief09
if they fold, that's great too
I'm going to disagree for the sake of discussion, and hopefully you can show me where I'm going wrong. I'd
appreciate it if you could explain to me when the buying outs is really useful, because given my experience,
and some recent posts, I've started to really question how valuable it is.
286
First of all, if you knock out those 2 players, and they don't have a K, that's obviously a terrible situation. If
they do have a K, then it's obviously a good situation. But is it good enough to outweigh the times you both
lose value on your flush draw and don't get paid off when you hit?
my problem with this is that if they do fold a K, that buys you 2 outs. you'll only hit one of them about 8%
of the time. even if it wins the 75% of the time that you don't make a flush, that's still not very often. now
add in the fact that neither of these players will have a K most of the time, and that the pot is relatively
small, it would seem like the EV of picking up 2 outs which will win a medium sized pot very occasionally
wouldn't seem that high
I think a hand like JTs could benefit a lot more from buying outs since it contains two potentially dirty pair
outs. K2 only contains 1.
so I'm asking, at what point is:
(EV of picking up occasionally 2 outs which will win the medium-sized pot about 75% of the time) > (EV
of keeping them in to give you value on your draw and pay you off when you make your flush)
it wouldn't be fair if I didn't mention the fact that often, they won't even pay you off when you hit, but if they
just call the flop raise, that's about 1 BB right in your pocket. I question that the 2 K outs that you
occasionally pick up are worth much more than the 1 BB you gain immediately by letting them be the 3rd
and 4th callers
Clarkmeister
I'd put it like this, to keep it simple.
A. If they both call 2, that's great.
B. If one calls 2sb and one folds, that's better than both calling 1sb. Same pot size and bigger chance of
winning.
C. If they both fold, your chances of winning have likely gone up even more dramatically. Not only with a
king, but what do you think the chances are that the button is raising a draw instead of a made hand? 20%?
30%? That suddenly takes our 12 outs and about 45% pot equity to something north of 60%.
sthief09
OK, that makes sense. C is what I wasn't considering. thanks
287
8-handed online 20/40: shaky protection
astroglide
Preflop: Hero is MP2 with A , 8 .
2 folds, MP1 calls, Hero calls, MP3 calls, 1 fold, Button raises, SB 3-bets, BB calls, MP1 calls, Hero calls,
MP3 folds, Button caps, SB calls, BB calls, MP1 calls, Hero calls.
overlimp is simple for me here, no line on the limper and the table doesn't seem crazy. bb calling the 3bet
is enough for me to make a "colorful" call here. i'm not necessarily expecting a cap because it was a
button raise.
Flop: (21 SB) 6 , 4 , 7 (5 players)
SB checks, BB checks, MP1 checks, Hero bets, Button calls, SB raises, BB folds, MP1 folds, Hero 3-bets,
Button folds, SB caps, Hero calls.
backdoor and gutshot. i'm expecting to call something back to me, but ideally i'd like to get a fold out of
somebody with an ace to turn my 4-outer with a backdoor flush into a 6-outer with a backdoor flush. i'm
sure queens or kings are out there.
mmcd
What's MP1's story? I'll usually only limp along w/ a hand like A8s if the open limp came from EP or if
there is more than limper in front of me. When faced with an open limp from MP or later, I'll almost always
raise in an attempt to isolate, and/or get the button.
edit: I just reread your post and saw that you had no read on the open limper, but generally speaking, I think
the types of players who open limp in MP are the types you won't mind isolating w/ A8s.
Postflop looks fine to me. The pots gigantic and getting hands like AQ/AJ to fold is well worth an extra sb
or 2 IMO.
288
skp
Well, all that italicized stuff leaves us nothing more to talk about...well, almost nothing as mmcd may have
a good point about the preflop raise but I too slightly prefer the overlimp but it depends...
Anyway, well played.
lil feller
The pre-flop play seems like a coin toss to me. Sometimes I'll raise this sort of player with this sort of hand,
sometimes I'll overlimp, depends on some other variables. I really like your flop play, as you surely got ABig in the button to fold. I might be concerned that the SB has AA, given the flop cap and the action preflop, but KK or QQ isn't certainly more likely. I'm assuming you go into "call unless I hit mode" on the turn,
and muck the river?
astroglide
yes, call unless i hit. if i turned an ace, i'd raise the river and fold to a threebet. if i rivered an ace, i'd raise
and fold to a threebet.
disjunction
I'm going to try to take a stab at the flop with some math, which I'm sure will be ignored:
There are ~25 small bets in the pot, you're definitely calling, and raising costs you an extra 1.5 (assuming a
50% chance of a cap), so you need around 16:1 odds. How often is the Button on a better ace? Assuming
50%, you're buying 2 outs half the time, equivalently 1 out. Assuming you'll stay to the river, you have a
1/25 chance of hitting your out. On that math I'd say calling is best, but raising isn't terrible considering
we're only talking of a couple %, and lots of other good stuff (free cards, etc) can happen.
But if you think you could find a way where SB could be checkraising top pair only (I can't, unless he calls
preflop with connectors), your 8 might be good, and then I'd say raise.
These seem to be the issues, to me.
skp
Let's say that you hit an Ace on the turn and you are up against KK. Curious as to why you would want to
wait until the river to raise? The pot is huge. That dude with the Kk will not fold the turn if you raise. He
will call and pay off on the river to boot. But if you just call the turn, he may not bet the river given teh Ace
on board. Also, a scare card (like a 3,5 or 8) might show up giving him another reason not to bet.
I suppose the one ad of waiting to raise the river is that he is less likely to 3 bet you (depending on the river
card) if he has AA or AK. But overall, I like the turn raise in this spot.
astroglide
if i raise the turn and he threebets, i would have to call and it would be much more inducing to make a "this
eats balls but the pot is massive" river call. i can muster up some folds that would make some heads around
here spin but even i only have so much of a tolerance for pot sizes. so basically a turn raise can cost me an
extra 2 bets unimproved. a river threebet means BUSINESS. the scare card factor is valid, but i don't think
the ace would slow this guy down from betting the river with his intensity and my flop play. there's still a
decent possibility that i would raise a turned ace in the actual moment though.
skp
I think the overriding factor is the likelihood that this guy will bet his KK on the river even with the Ace out
there. If, as you say, this guy is likely to bet, then I like your line but against most guys, I like the turn raise
line better.
Paluka
I think the preflop limp is absolute fine. Calling 2 bets back to me preflop is always the spot where I'm
really not sure what to do. I usuall lean towards calling because these pots are usually enormous and seeing
the flop is a good thing. I like when you 3 bet the flop in hopes to knock out the ace behind you, seems like
289
a good play that could knock out a guy and get yo a free cards on the turn. What I'm not sure about is your
initial flop bet.
disjunction
How often do you think there's an ace behind him?
theBruiser500
Why is no one responding to disjunction's post with the math? MMCD says, "The pots gigantic and getting
hands like AQ/AJ to fold is well worth an extra sb or 2 IMO. " but what does your opinion have to do with
this, this just seems like a math problem to me.
Disjunction you said raising costs an extra 1.5 bets but it seems like 1.75 is more accurate. But anyway
using your number 16:1 odds, or your play needs to work 1/17 times for it to be profitable, and you are
adding a 1/25 chance of hitting your out, that seems definitly bad to me. How by the way would we convert
this 1/17 vs. 1/25 thing to actual $$ or BB lost because of this raise? So, how do you guys refute
disjunctions point?
astroglide
the point is only worth refuting, if one wanted to (i don't) as a post-analysis. it's certainly valuable to get the
mathies out of the woodwork on situations like this but at the table there is no way i'm calculating anything
remotely close to that, i'm just going by what seems appropriate. i like hands like this though because it
forces us to re-evaluate our definitions of proper action.
mmcd
You have just shy of 25% pot equity not counting Aces as outs. Any bet you put in the pot will only cost
you 75% (1.13sb assuming you figuring on putting 1.5sb in the pot, and 1.31sb assuming you figure on
putting in 1.75)
The button has a bigger ace than you here far more than 50% of the time given the preflop and flop action.
By cleaning up the the two remaining aces as outs, you are adding ~6% to your pot equity, or around 1.5sb
to your expectation. Once you factor in implied and reverse implied odds here, a raise is clearly better than
a call as you will likely multiple bets those times you hit your flush and (had you not knocked the button
out, you would have had to put at least 1bb in on the river if an A hit. Also getting the pot heads up prevents
it from getting raised again on later streets unless you want it raised. I said "IMO" because I was basing my
assertion on my intuition as to how the math would work out.
disjunction
You have just shy of 25% pot equity not counting Aces as outs. Any bet you put in the pot will only cost you
75% (1.13sb assuming you figuring on putting 1.5sb in the pot, and 1.31sb assuming you figure on putting
in 1.75)
mmcd,
Thanks for the reply. I don't think poker is all math, but I do think discussing it every once in awhile
exposes the assumptions we are making in a way. And there's the old adage that says if you estimate enough
paramaters, your errors will roughly offset. My comments about yours:
(1) How do you get 25% ? 4 outs gives you only 17% pot equity, and that assumes nobody's cards interfere
with your 1-card straight draw. So if you figure to put 1.5 sb in, it's really 1.25 (you're right, I missed this,
that's why I posted). If you figure on putting 1.75 sb in, it's 1.45 sb. So your additional investment will need
to bring you back 1.25-1.45 sb in order to be worth it.
(2) Here's where you're probably right and my numbers are off. Your figure of buying 1.5 sb means he's
about 70% likely to have an ace AND fold it, my figure of 50% means you only buy 1.12 sb. The flop
action sure looks like an ace, but are we 90% sure, and then will he fold it 80% of the time (.90*.80=
72%) ?
290
(3a) I'm going to wave a wand and say implied odds won't be much better than the 25sb pot odds, because
of future betting to chase your draw.
(3b) I probably agree that the 3-bet will somehow help you in future streets, although the button won't be
around to pay you off when you hit your draw.
So the conclusion of this post is it costs 1.1-1.5 sb to make a little more than 1.25-1.45 sb. If it weren't
close, it probably wouldn't have been posted.
mmcd
(1) How do you get 25% ? 4 outs gives you only 17% pot equity,
You have the backdoor flush draw, running 8s, and running A 8 as outs as well.
GuyOnTilt
Hey Astro,
Nice hand.
Preflop, I most likely play exactly the same. It would be nice to know the numbers of the limpers and the
numbers of the players on your left, but it sounds like you're not much of a numbers guy so you probably
don't have them to give. Against the mix of most tables I'm at though, the limp is not just fine, it's correct. I
call the two back to me unless MP3's numbers are such that he's likely to fold, but the vast majority of
players aren't, so without numbers I'm calling.
On the flop, you must bet. You know this, but I don't think most here do. You're going for a Button raise
here, which didn't happen, but fortunately things were flip-flopped in terms of who has what and the SB
gave you an opportunity to accomplish your goal, just not the way you were expecting. This is actually
better, since you now have position on the overpair and hitting your ace becomes easier to extract value. So
you do the right thing and 3-bet, Button folds as planned, and you're capped. Which is fine. A free card
would've been nice, but not expected.
On the turn, you should call any turn card but your gutshot. This includes spiking an ace. Raising an ace
would be bad, as I think you already know.
On the river, you're not calling. There is exactly zero hands that you want to call with here. You're raising
an Ace, either turned or rivered, and you're folding to a 3-bet. You're raising backdoor trip 8's. You're
raising backdoor flushes. You're raising rivered gutshots. Never calling. Calling is bad on this street. You're
folding turned or rivered 8's.
This was a good hand to post. You played it well, and I think you probably know how to play it well on the
turn and river. Very nicely done.
Edit: Concerning the PF action, I just saw your title said this one was dealt 8-handed. In the PF action, you
said there were 2 folders then a limper to you. In that case, you were 2 off the Button and I think you should
raise against most mixes. The rest of the action indicates that you were 3 off the Button though, in which
case I'd limp against most mixes.
GuyOnTilt
Hey Bruiser,
I'm a numbers guy and incorporate a lot of math and weighted ev calcs and such into my game. I've done
quite a few calcs for these exact situations, enough to know by looking at this one that 3-betting the flop is
the right play here. I don't feel like doing this exact situation right here, right now, but if you still have your
doubts I'd encourage you to crunch some numbers yourself. Once you do enough of these for specific
situations against a bunch of different specific ranges of hands in specific pot sizes, you get a feel of what is
291
right when against whom just by remembering the pattern of those calcs and the turning points for different
plays. This one's a 3-bet.
Clarkmeister
Perfect.
theBruiser500
GoT, when you bet the flop why are you hoping for a button raise? It's interesting to see how different
players think about poker. Like you I find math like this very interesting, so I know what to do in future
situations and how much to value certain factors in a hand. Also thanks MMCD for the response, hope I
didn't come off as a jerk when I attacked your use of IMO
AceHigh
GOT,
I ran these this thru twodimes and it seems like getting a better Ace to fold is worth about .095 EV. As long
as the SB doesn't have AA. So it seems worth 3-betting if the pot is 20sb or larger and you are likely to get
the button to fold and you won't get 4-bet some of the time by the SB.
See below:
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=714911
pokenum -h ac kh - as 8s - qh qd -- 6d 4s 7c
Holdem Hi: 903 enumerated boards containing 4s 7c 6d
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac Kh 157 17.39 734 81.28 12 1.33 0.178
As 8s 208 23.03 683 75.64 12 1.33 0.235
Qd Qh 526 58.25 365 40.42 12 1.33 0.587
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=714912
pokenum -h as 8s - qh qd -- 6d 4s 7c
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing 4s 7c 6d
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As 8s 321 32.42 657 66.36 12 1.21 0.330
Qd Qh 657 66.36 321 32.42 12 1.21 0.670
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=714914
pokenum -h as 8s - ah ad -- 6d 4s 7c
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing 4s 7c 6d
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As 8s 212 21.41 766 77.37 12 1.21 0.220
Ad Ah 766 77.37 212 21.41 12 1.21 0.780
That pretty much sums up the useful content of this post. However, amulet (who is probably the most hated
mid/high poster in history) came in a little later and said this was a clear fold preflop. All the big names
tried to explain that he was wrong, but soon, the flame-fest started. I included it because it’s pretty damn
funny.
amulet
read my post about why, before you call the statment dumb. and read where i said i was uncertain but had a
opinion, or do you want to digress into a fight after the progress we made. the name calling seems
unproductive. i am listening and thinking about the points
Johnny Boom Boom
292
Dude stop talking about the progress we made/are making. We're not in a relationship. I could care less
about "progress." If you continue to make dumb blanket statements, I'm not going to just let them slide. I'm
not calling you a name, I didn't call you dumb, I called the statement dumb, why are you so defensive?
I read your post about why, I've read all your posts and replied to nearly all of them. Yet you still generalize
when you say hand X has neg EV. You need to realize the pointlessness of such a statement if you want to
reach the next level.
El Diablo
I need some professional help after reading this thread.
amulet
stupidy we showed aside, do you have an opinion on the origional hand that started this?
sfer
Oh snap! Now Diablo got pwned! When does it stop!
El Diablo
I'm not exactly sure what pwned means, but I think what I did to your mom last night qualifies.
Johnny Boom Boom
SFer = PIZN00NNZORED!
sfer
I'm not exactly sure what pwned means, but I think what I did to your mom last night qualifies.
My mother is dead.
Johnny Boom Boom
She finally walked in on you?
El Diablo
That response is so played out. I expected better.
Johnny Boom Boom
Oh [censored] x2!!!!!!!!!!
RainFall
yeah Oedipus over there has been bitter every since her passing.. Show some respect
sfer
You think I joke? Why do you think I'm suck a bitter prick?
Only TSC could improve this thread.
El Diablo
I just figured you hated yourself cuz your comebacks are so weak.
sfer
Oedipus got to bone his mother. That would make Diablo proud.
GuyOnTilt
not what i said. i think A8s has a ned ev. i also think A8s in early or mid position has an bigger neg ev. but
i may be incorrect. (←amulet said this)
You have got to be fucking joking me. If you're not joking, I'm done responding to anything you post on
these boards. You obvious lack the mental facilities to comprehend information and/or attempt to think
293
objectively. If that's true, you really should just give up on poker.
amulet
if you never respond again that would be great. keep your word!
Johnny Boom Boom
You just got pwned harder than anyone ever, and that's all you came up with?
sfer
C'mon Diablo. A mom joke. A mom joke. That's sooooo White Men Can't Jump.
El Diablo
This comeback might have been funny had you responded to the initial mom joke with it. Resorting to it
after a handful of failed comebacks is as weak as, well, I can't really say since I can't think of anything quite
that weak.
Johnny Boom Boom
Game. Set. Match.
sfer
In two weeks I'm going to write a jerkstore post that will rule.