Goofy hand

[elindauer]

I thought I was an OK player, but after pulling the ultimate goofball play of limp-reraising 33, I'm not so sure. What do you think?

Party Poker 15/30 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 3/images/graemlins/club.gif.
UTG calls, Hero calls, <font color="666666">1 fold</font>, MP2 calls, <font color="CC3333">MP3 raises</font>, CO calls, Button calls, SB calls, BB calls, UTG calls, <font color="CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, Button calls, SB calls, <font color="CC3333">BB caps</font>, UTG calls, Hero calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, Button calls, SB calls.

Flop: (32 SB) 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(8 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="CC3333">BB bets</font>, UTG folds, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP2 calls, <font color="CC3333">MP3 3-bets</font>, CO folds, Button calls, SB calls, <font color="CC3333">BB caps</font>, Hero calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, Button calls, SB calls $2.50 (All-In).

Turn: (27.58 BB) 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(6 players, 1 all-in)</font>
<font color="CC3333">BB bets</font>, Hero calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, Button calls.

River: (32.58 BB) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(6 players, 1 all-in)</font>
<font color="CC3333">BB bets $29 (All-In)</font>, Hero folds, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, Button calls.

Final Pot: 35.48 BB
<font color="green">Main Pot: 25.50 BB, between SB, BB, MP3 and Button.</font> &gt; <font color="white">Pot won by BB (25.50 BB).</font>
<font color="green">Pot 2: 9.98 BB, between BB, MP3 and Button.</font> &gt; <font color="white">Pot won by BB (9.98 BB).</font>

Results:

BB shows T7o for the winner. Insert sound of Button puking here.


SB has 9h 9c (three of a kind, nines).
MP3 has Th Td (one pair, tens).
Button has Kc Ks (one pair, kings).


A river deuce would have been worth over 1000 dollars. Damn.

Outcome: BB wins 35.48 BB.

[CanKid]

might have turned out cooler if you didn't run into KK and TT

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[skp]

A river 7 would have been good too :-)

Obviously, the preflop limp reraise is a mistake. The flop raise is good if it helps fold an 8 but I am not sure that it would. Nevertheless, I think that the flop raise is fine. Extremely surprsing that 99 didn't raise the turn.

[mmcd]

The limp is questionable given your position. The reraise, however, was correct.

[random]

[ QUOTE ]
Extremely surprsing that 99 didn't raise the turn.

[/ QUOTE ] He was already all in.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
The limp is questionable given your position. The reraise, however, was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. The problem with the re-raise is that:

1) It my "force" you to continue with the hand even if you do not spike a set on the flop.
2) If you do flop a set, hand protection becomes almost impossible.

[astroglide]

no sir, i didn't like it

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
no sir, i didn't like it

[/ QUOTE ]


Care to elaborate? For example, given the hands that were shown down, I had a seven out draw on the flop and turn. Given the number of players in against me, and given that they can't beat me if I catch, I was actually making money even after I missed my set.

What about preflop? Raising 33 for value seems strange, but with 7 opponents, I decided my pot equity was probably more than 1 in 8. How can this be, when I can be so sure I'm up against at least one higher pocket pair? Well, players with hands like T7o are drawing almost dead. If I imagine that there might be three or four players hanging around with hands like this, say, KQ, QJ, ATs, etc, then it's reasonable to think that my hand is one of the better ones in the mix.

Thoughts? I don't think it's an open and shut case.


Granted, this happens so rarely that it probably doesn't matter.

Thanks,
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
The limp is questionable given your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the only thing you know about this table is that in this hand, eight players saw the flop, you might go out on a limb and speculate that I'd correctly read the table as one where limping with small pocket pairs is profitable. Don't you think?

Good luck.
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh. The problem with the re-raise is that:

1) It my "force" you to continue with the hand even if you do not spike a set on the flop.
2) If you do flop a set, hand protection becomes almost impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points. However, if I do spike a set, I win a much bigger pot. Also, if I do spike a set, that lowly 3 is unlikely to help anyone else. That leaves most of the rest of the table trying to make straights with only four cards.

Note that even in a pot this big, a properly applied turn raise may knock out pocket pairs drawing to higher sets.

I'm not convinced that a reraise is correct though, especially given the particularly high liklihood of set under set here.

Good luck.
Eric

[SA125]

15-30 BB calls/caps PF with T7o and wins a monster. Interesting.

As for the limp re-raise with a small PP, am I the only one wondering if mike l.'s 44 button re-raise influenced this play? Like I said in mike's hand, if you're raised and decide to roll the dice on the flop for 2 bets, why not 3?

I'm sure astro is right about this being -EV in the long run, because he knows these things. But obviuosly the odds of calling 1 more bet is correct there, both pot and implied. So, back to mike l.'s 44 button play. Why not 3 bets?

[skp]

Easy reason for why 3 betting is bad. You are hoping to flop a set. Small pairs thrive on implied odds. Your implied odds go down when your preflop entrance fee goes up.
The additional value you get by tying people on to the pot when you flop a set is negligible given that guys are going to be as tied to the pot when the preflop betting has 16 small bets as when it has 24 small bets. Worse, some dude might cap it and you now have wrecked your implied odds beyond repair.

At least Mike l had the button going for him with his 44, Elindauer is somewhere in early position. Good luck trying to get a free card somewhere because of the limp reraise. And incidentally, no on in his right mind is going to read this limp reraise as AA/KK as preflop, someone had already limped before elindauer did. And even if they read him for AA (hell, if he showed them AA), they are going to chase (and correctly so).

What the hell is going on around here with all this limp reraising with dinky pairs.

This is all Poker 101, guys (granted, I haven't yet taken Poker 501 and maybe it has some advanced thinking that overrides the poker 101 teachings. Hopefully, someone could share the 501 stuff with me).

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
What the hell is going on around here with all this limp reraising with dinky pairs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they are trying to build huge pots, to drive up there tables average pot size so all the tight players see it and join there games, /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kevin J]

Such a play (limp/re-raising a large field with 33), costs just a fraction of a bet. I wouldn't make a habit of it, but taken by itself, I don't see the big deal. ?? You could also make this play now and then with a hand like QJs.

[Kevin J]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure astro is right about this being -EV in the long run,

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that it can't be -EV by much. I think this is a classic example of what DS means when he says that although these plays might be fun to talk about, they really aren't all that important.

I edited this to say that what I meant was.. As an "isolated incident", the -EV isn't worth thinking about because such a play only costs a fraction of a bet. Of course, if you made a habit out of ALWAYS doing this, it would eventually prove to be a flawed strategy.

[astroglide]

a lot of what i said in the mike l overlimp-reraising 44 thread applies

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The limp is questionable given your position. The reraise, however, was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. The problem with the re-raise is that:

1) It my "force" you to continue with the hand even if you do not spike a set on the flop.
2) If you do flop a set, hand protection becomes almost impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, that 'force' you to continue is a very good thing. You are given the odds to see another card, and in this case, this extra money hasn't come from your mistake preflop, it's come from others, Q2o etc. The only problem with the 'force' is if you have psyc. problems to go too far with your hand postflop because of your preflop play.

Secondly, You shouldn't care about hand protection, making the pot big here will incourage them to go too far with hands they shouldn't be when you flop a set (overcards, any pair), see QJs in HPFAP.

I don't know if i do agree with the limpreraise yet, but i don't disagree with it for those two reasons.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that even in a pot this big, a properly applied turn raise may knock out pocket pairs drawing to higher sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say someone does indeed have 77 and decides to, correctly, draw to a higher set on the turn, would you imagine his EV to be huge? Large? Medium? Small? or tiny? .. if he's getting 24:1 on a 22:1 shot his EV is TINY making the cost to you tiny. Yet the -EV of somone with overcards drawing utterly dead is HUGE (one whole SB surprisingly). So the quote above shouldn't have even entered your mind. Nor should hand protection. You should continue to milk your hand (when you hit a set) even in this big pot, not 'win big pots right away'.

[skp]

You are correct and yet, you are not.

It is just a fraction of a bet mistake. But so is calling a loose raiser when you have 63 offsuit in the bb. So, is calling a UTG raise with AJ in LP.

You do have a point though that the 63 offsuit and AJ small errors are more noteworthy errors as they can be made often. On the other hand, the 33 limp reraise against 7 opponents will be a rare occurrence.