QJs UTG, HU with overcards [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

bisonbison

08-12-2004, 03:06 PM

MP1 just sat down.

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
Hero calls, 2 folds, MP1 raises, 6 folds, Hero calls.

Flop: (5.33 SB) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, MP1 bets, Hero calls.

Turn: (3.66 BB) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, MP1 bets, Hero calls.

River: (5.66 BB) K/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero bets, MP1 raises, Hero 3-bets, MP1 caps, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 13.66 BB

nepenthe

08-12-2004, 03:10 PM

You let him draw out on you, so bad bad bad. Results don't matter. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

bisonbison

08-12-2004, 03:14 PM

You let him draw out on you, so bad bad bad. Results don't matter.

Well, that was a non-sensical response.

Garland

08-12-2004, 03:19 PM

I might prefer a raise preflop, but other than that, it looks pretty good.

Garland

sfer

08-12-2004, 03:20 PM

What compelled you to call the flop?

bisonbison

08-12-2004, 03:26 PM

What compelled you to call the flop?

Yeah. This was, I felt, the closest decision. I don't know, the sight of a couple backdoor draws, a desire not to fold... ugh.

BassMan712

08-12-2004, 03:27 PM

Calling pre-flop is fine given the generally loose 3/6 games on Party.

Calling the flop was fine. You're able to continue with the hand if a Q, J, 9, K or any heart falls on the turn. Seeing another card for just 1 bet is fine IMO.

Everything else is typical.

nepenthe

08-12-2004, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You let him draw out on you, so bad bad bad. Results don't matter.

Well, that was a non-sensical response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. I play it the same. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

kpux

08-12-2004, 03:36 PM

I don't like the flop call very much, simply because it's HU. Luckily, you got paid off when one of your running draws hit, but I don't think the pot is big enough to chase with just one other person.

pokerkai

08-12-2004, 03:40 PM

limp QJs utg...is this standard? Or am I just too tight

nepenthe

08-12-2004, 03:41 PM

If you feel uncomfortable limping in with QJs from UTG, it's time to look for a different table.

bdk3clash

08-12-2004, 03:54 PM

Is this like an M. Night Shyamalan movie, but the twist is that you're MP1 and the hero is actually the villain?

I probably would have made the flop call too, but I think I shouldn't. The Q and J outs obviously need to be discounted, and the backdoor draws are sweet but most likely not enough to make a call here correct. Unless your implied odds include collecting 4 bets with the nuts on the river, in which case you have a clear flop call getting only an immediate 6.33:1.

MP1 should have TT or KK here, no?

DrSavage

08-12-2004, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
MP1 just sat down.

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
Hero calls, 2 folds, MP1 raises, 6 folds, Hero calls.

Flop: (5.33 SB) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, MP1 bets, Hero calls.

Turn: (3.66 BB) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, MP1 bets, Hero calls.

River: (5.66 BB) K/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero bets, MP1 raises, Hero 3-bets, MP1 caps, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 13.66 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to fold the flop right there or check/raise and take initiative, this seems like a good bluff with outs. Calling flop and turn with nothing but backdoor draws and a 2 BB pot can't be right. Your opponent with KK or TT should berate you for your fishiness.

bisonbison

08-12-2004, 04:04 PM

No, hero was me. I didn't post this hand cause I was proud of rivering a straight. I feel like I'm making a lot of bad decisions in the short-handed pots that are more common at 3/6 than I'm used to.

Nate tha' Great

08-12-2004, 04:13 PM

I Pokerstoved this one. Against a player whose range of raising hands is [AA-99, AKs-ATs, KQs, AKo-AJo, KQo], you have a little bit less than 20 percent equity on this flop. I think that's enough to take a card off getting 6.33:1.

BigEndian

08-12-2004, 04:16 PM

You are getting 5-1 immediate on your over cards (assuming they're clean). You need to put in 3SB to complete a flush or straight draw if it presents itself on fourth street. There's virtually no chance of you having the best hand at the moment.

Given that, I'm folding this flop bison. I think that if you know the player to be very aggressive, the flop call is ok. But against an unknown you can't be sure to make up the bets heads-up.

Edit: Nate is right, 6-1. I'm still not calling - how can you put in a raise if an overcard comes off?

Edit again, for clarity...: if YOUR overcard comes off..

- Jim

StellarWind

08-12-2004, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
limp QJs utg...is this standard? Or am I just too tight

[/ QUOTE ]
Very easy call at any normal small stakes table.

Nepenthe did not give you a complete answer. If you have to wonder about QJs very often, you don't need a new table ... you need a new site.

arkady

08-12-2004, 04:25 PM

you do realize that bison has the nuts right? At worst he is splitting with another QJ, but more likely than not it looks like villain got a set.

mikeyvegas

08-12-2004, 04:29 PM

I think the flop call is fine against an unknown MP pf raiser. Actually, this hand is kind of boring.

Trix

08-12-2004, 04:30 PM

Does the thing take into account that you will fold most of the time on the turn, but your opponent will see the river about every time ?

The situation also suck from a implied/reverse implied odds perspective.

I think this is a muck, but is close enough that it would be a call if you knew anything about how he plays.

StellarWind

08-12-2004, 04:33 PM

You have essentially zero chance that your hand can win a showdown on the flop. You have nine nominal outs counting your two backdoors as three.

Against AA, KK, QQ, and TT your overcard outs are all dead.

Against AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, and JJ you only have three overcard outs.

Against AK you have six overcard outs but he has nine outs to redraw.

Against AT you have six overcard outs but he has eight outs to redraw.

You need to deduct 1/2 out from your backdoor straight because you do not have pot odds to call the turn if an ace or eight comes and gives you a gutshot.

On average I give you about 4.5 effective outs. Your implied odds on making a pair are probably negative because you only win half the time. I don't think this flop call is remotely close to correct.

bdk3clash

08-12-2004, 04:51 PM

No, hero was me. I didn't post this hand cause I was proud of rivering a straight. I feel like I'm making a lot of bad decisions in the short-handed pots that are more common at 3/6 than I'm used to.

To clarify, I wasn't trying to imply you played poorly or chose a silly hand to post--far from it. There's a ton to learn from a hand like this, which happen a lot as you move up in limits and more frequently stumble into a "reasonble" game.

I just saw nepenthe's response:

You let him draw out on you, so bad bad bad. Results don't matter.

and thought that I might have been onto something. As usual, I wasn't.

StellarWind

08-12-2004, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I Pokerstoved this one. Against a player whose range of raising hands is [AA-99, AKs-ATs, KQs, AKo-AJo, KQo], you have a little bit less than 20 percent equity on this flop. I think that's enough to take a card off getting 6.33:1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your simulation drew two cards to achieve that 20%.

In order to get anything remotely approaching 20% it will be necessary to call a blank turn at 4.6-1 to draw again to your overcards. Obviously you can't do that.

Another way to view this is your pot odds on taking two cards are 8.33-3 or about 2.8-1. A 20% chance is not nearly good enough.

nepenthe

08-12-2004, 05:07 PM

You do realize my emoticon right /images/graemlins/crazy.gif?

droidboy

08-12-2004, 05:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, hero was me. I didn't post this hand cause I was proud of rivering a straight. I feel like I'm making a lot of bad decisions in the short-handed pots that are more common at 3/6 than I'm used to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You played it fine. Heads up, this is a clear call on the flop. You need about 6.5 effective outs to call here. You've got 2.5 from your backdoor draws, and another six from your pair draws, as well a some bluff outs on the turn when you check/raise with a strong draw. That's about 9 outs before discounting. Discounting your draws hurts you, but remember, you are (probably) drawing against him, so you've got implied odds that you can rely on too.

Easy flop call.

You should have raised preflop though.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

sfer

08-12-2004, 05:14 PM

The flop call is not at all clear.

arkady

08-12-2004, 05:15 PM

i guess, too bad the initial post still makes no sense. But as long as you have /images/graemlins/crazy.gif, that should clear it up for people. The power of /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Nate tha' Great

08-12-2004, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Pokerstoved this one. Against a player whose range of raising hands is [AA-99, AKs-ATs, KQs, AKo-AJo, KQo], you have a little bit less than 20 percent equity on this flop. I think that's enough to take a card off getting 6.33:1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your simulation drew two cards to achieve that 20%.

In order to get anything remotely approaching 20% it will be necessary to call a blank turn at 4.6-1 to draw again to your overcards. Obviously you can't do that.

Another way to view this is your pot odds on taking two cards are 8.33-3 or about 2.8-1. A 20% chance is not nearly good enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehh, I'm being sloppy today. But it's worth remembering that his opponent will sometimes check behind on the turn.

Bison needs 4-1 odds to make his call profitable before considering implied and reverse implied odds.

He gets 2.8-1 when his opponent bets the turn and 6.3-1 when his opponent checks the turn. If his opponent checks the turn one-third of the time, then he'll get

6.3-1 33% of the time
2.8-1 67% of the time
========================
4-1 on average

That might or might not give bibi a call, but it it makes an interesting point about the dangers of checking behind on the turn too frequently - by so doing, you give your opponent better effective odds on his flop calls.

StellarWind

08-12-2004, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize my emoticon right /images/graemlins/crazy.gif?

[/ QUOTE ]
I understood your original post to be irony and it was good.

But next time if you want to appeal to a wider audience and not be a misunderstood artist you may find that /images/graemlins/wink.gif is a better choice of emoticon for this purpose.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

bisonbison

08-12-2004, 05:37 PM

You do realize my emoticon right?

I didn't understand what you were getting at until someone mentioned that maybe I had switched roles (which is plainly impossible because I don't post bad beats!).

I do want to add that emoticons are the death knell of something or other.

arkady

08-12-2004, 05:39 PM

he just doesn't have a good read on you yet.

scotnt73

08-12-2004, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[i]

I do want to add that emoticons are the death knell of something or other.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol! now im really confused. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

bisonbison

08-12-2004, 05:40 PM

he just doesn't have a good read on you yet.

He doesn't know that I'm allergic to irony.

arkady

08-12-2004, 05:43 PM

one word: Claritin.

BeerMoney

08-12-2004, 05:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What compelled you to call the flop?

Yeah. This was, I felt, the closest decision. I don't know, the sight of a couple backdoor draws, a desire not to fold... ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, whenever I play a hand like a fish, I always justify it to myself by saying something like "hey, I didn't want to look like a folder or...I'm doing that for future hands, so they don't think I can be bluffed so easily".. not that you played it like a fish, but I guess the flop call was thin.

StellarWind

08-12-2004, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so you've got implied odds that you can rely on too

[/ QUOTE ]
Not exactly. Suppose you make a pair of jacks on the turn. You happily bet to collect on your "implied odds" and avoid a free card.

He raises with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, and AJ. You lose an extra 3 BB thanks to that jack. This is a very likely scenario and you'll almost never collect this much when your one pair is winning.

There are no implied odds unless you backdoor a big hand.

MoreWineII

08-12-2004, 05:52 PM

This hand reminded me of 6-max for some reason.

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif <-- I don't know what that means but apparently if you put it in your post, it makes it gooder.

StellarWind

08-12-2004, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That might or might not give bibi a call, but it it makes an interesting point about the dangers of checking behind on the turn too frequently - by so doing, you give your opponent better effective odds on his flop calls.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I also think that if the flop call were closer this possibility should be considered.

I am very interested in hands where a player misses his draw and winds up with the pot anyway:

"The turn checked through and I hit on the free card."

"I checkfolded my busted draw on the river but no one bet. My K-high (or rivered pair of twos) was good. Who would have thought everyone was betting a draw?"

These happen all the time in my experience. It's important to consider the likelihood of something happening when the pot odds look close.

Actual hand I posted a while back: I made a very borderline flop call from the button with 33 for the 6-out gutshot+PP draw. The flop action seemed strong but the turn checked to me and I took it down with a bet.

I find that these nice things usually happen when I have the button. That's the time to push a little.

bisonbison

08-12-2004, 06:17 PM

I am very interested in hands where a player misses his draw and winds up with the pot anyway:

About 30 minutes after I posted this thread, I call a LP open-raise in the BB with JdTd. HU flop comes 4c7h8h. check, bet, call. turn blank, check, check (READY TO FOLD). River 9h, bet, call, pot mine.

droidboy

08-12-2004, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so you've got implied odds that you can rely on too

[/ QUOTE ]
Not exactly. Suppose you make a pair of jacks on the turn. You happily bet to collect on your "implied odds" and avoid a free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Pairing your jack doesn't give you very much implied odds. But... If your jacks are going to be good better than half the time, they start to give you implied odds. Understanding implied odds is vital to extracting them.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

droidboy

08-12-2004, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am very interested in hands where a player misses his draw and winds up with the pot anyway:

About 30 minutes after I posted this thread, I call a LP open-raise in the BB with JdTd. HU flop comes 4c7h8h. check, bet, call. turn blank, check, check (READY TO FOLD). River 9h, bet, call, pot mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you fold this hand heads-up on the turn? Do you know something about the raiser in particular?

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

Bob T.

08-12-2004, 07:31 PM

I think Stellarwind got the flop decision right here. If you just count outs, but dont factor in the possibility that your outs will be good, it seems like a call. But when you consider that you might make some of your hands, and still lose, then you probably have to fold here. I don't think calling was a huge mistake, especially when you might have found an opponent willing to go for mutiple bets when you made your hand, but I think it might have been a thin error.

MAxx

08-12-2004, 10:21 PM

I am laughing at all the emotionalcons, talk of irony, and word plays to the point that I have almost forgot what the thread was about. /images/graemlins/smile.gif + /images/graemlins/confused.gif

bisonbison

08-12-2004, 10:28 PM

Even when I post a real strategy thread, things tend to get a little out of control.

MAxx

08-12-2004, 10:40 PM

I would fold this most of the time, a probably should all the time in no read siturations. It's a loose flop call, yes of course. Is it horrendous and make you a bad person, hell naw. Well, we get to the turn and its a whole new ball game. Now we see we got the odds to call. Hello River, bam... pay me.

BigEndian

08-13-2004, 11:38 AM

"but it it makes an interesting point about the dangers of checking behind on the turn too frequently - by so doing, you give your opponent better effective odds on his flop calls."

Excellent comment.

- Jim

StellarWind

08-13-2004, 12:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? Pairing your jack doesn't give you very much implied odds. But... If your jacks are going to be good better than half the time, they start to give you implied odds. Understanding implied odds is vital to extracting them.

[/ QUOTE ]
The jacks will not be good much more than half the time. There are too many hands you are either drawing dead against or dominated by. He also has many redraw outs.

The 'half' idea is incorrect. He knows when he can beat jacks and when he can't. He will use his position to raise you when he is winning and just call when he is losing. The pair of jacks will lose more when it loses than it will win when it wins. Ditto for queens.

Zero implied odds on turning a pair is generous. I think they are actually negative.

StellarWind

08-13-2004, 12:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you fold this hand heads-up on the turn? Do you know something about the raiser in particular?

[/ QUOTE ]
Easy fold. He has no appreciable chance of having the best hand. Ten outs that won't always win is not enough to call at 3-1. [I gave the SB to the rake.]

mikeyvegas

08-13-2004, 12:59 PM

Why is it that everyone here assumes that this low-limit unknown MP player is raising pf with cards a typical 2+2er would raise with. I have adopted the theory (from SSHE) that any low-limit table I play at is assumed to be loose/awful until proven otherwise. I believe this same standard could be adopted for any unknown individual player at a low-limit table.

spamuell

08-13-2004, 01:13 PM

Andrew,

I think Stellar's point about the reverse implied odds on turning a pair was an excellent reason as to why the flop call in this small pot is not as easy as you suggest. Additionally, you say:

[ QUOTE ]
as well a some bluff outs on the turn when you check/raise with a strong draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

How strong a draw are you talking about, at least 8 outs? So any 9, K or heart, nearly a third of the deck? These only counts as bluff outs though if there is a fairly high chance of your opponent folding to a check-raise, and I'm not sure that there is. He is unlikely to fold a pair and many opponents will call a turn check-raise with no pair heads-up, fearing that you are taking shots at them and they don't want to be pushed around. Given that your opponent raised pre-flop, he's likely to have a pair or overcards to the flop. Furthermore, when your opponent has a strong hand, there is a good chance of you being 3-bet on the turn which is very bad even if you do have 8 or 9 outs. This is why I don't think the flop call is as clear as you argue and a fold is probably better. I'd be interested to know what you think.

StellarWind

08-13-2004, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that everyone here assumes that this low-limit unknown MP player is raising pf with cards a typical 2+2er would raise with.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because I am a nice guy and gave BisonBison the benefit of the doubt.

My average Party 2/4 opponent has a PFR well under 6%. This player could easily be much more passive preflop than typical 2+2.

The LAGs may make more noise, but the passives are the silent majority.

BigEndian

08-13-2004, 01:18 PM

"The LAGs may make more noise, but the passives are the silent majority."

Ding, winnar!

- Jim

StellarWind

08-13-2004, 01:24 PM

Bluff checkraising the turn with outs will be very expensive unless you can represent a hand that beats one pair. The reraises will come pouring in from the overpairs. You are also pretty much committed to betting the river with a hand that has no showdown value because the overcards will call the turn to draw.

I don't see how spending 2 BB bluffing at such a tiny pot can be +EV.

bisonbison

08-13-2004, 01:29 PM

Stellar, I just wanted to take the time to thank you for responding in depth to this hand. Honestly, I feel like this is a very common situation (HU vs. a legit raiser), and I'm going to be focusing more on:

A) small pot size - do I actually have the odds to draw to anything?
B) tainted outs - overpairs, outkickeries and so on.
C) reverse implied odds - overcards, which I have more outs against, are not going to pay me off. overpairs, sets, two-pairs and such would pay me off, but my outs are often miniscule.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Stellar, you rock.

droidboy

08-13-2004, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you fold this hand heads-up on the turn? Do you know something about the raiser in particular?

[/ QUOTE ]
Easy fold. He has no appreciable chance of having the best hand. Ten outs that won't always win is not enough to call at 3-1. [I gave the SB to the rake.]

[/ QUOTE ]

First, even if you give the SB to the rake, it's not 3:1 it's 4:1 on the turn. HUGE difference. And it's true that your outs won't always be good, but in this specific situation, you only need 9.4 effective outs. I'll grant that you only have at most 10 possible outs if you are beaten, but with implied odds when you hit your straight (as well as your overcards) it's a clear call.

You really need to stop making basic mistakes, and looking for ways to lose. A guthot and two overcards is a clear call heads up.

- Andrew

droidboy

08-13-2004, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh? Pairing your jack doesn't give you very much implied odds. But... If your jacks are going to be good better than half the time, they start to give you implied odds. Understanding implied odds is vital to extracting them.

[/ QUOTE ]
The jacks will not be good much more than half the time. There are too many hands you are either drawing dead against or dominated by. He also has many redraw outs.

The 'half' idea is incorrect. He knows when he can beat jacks and when he can't. He will use his position to raise you when he is winning and just call when he is losing. The pair of jacks will lose more when it loses than it will win when it wins. Ditto for queens.

Zero implied odds on turning a pair is generous. I think they are actually negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given a generic 3/6 raiser, your pair outs are good more than half the time. Overall you're going to have positive implied odds here. You really do seem to suffer from "Indians behind the tree" syndrome.

- Andrew