I don't understand...

what happened in this particular hand. (This is just an approximation of what occurred, I didn't copy the hand down play by play).


Micro NL at UB, eight player table. UTG limps in for 25 cents followed by everybody else until SB raises another 25 cents. (I haven't played much with SB but have noticed he usually has one of the bigger stacks in front of him). I call in BB with QJo. When the betting is finished, there are five players competing for a pot of $3.25.


The flop comes 9s10sKh, giving me the nut straight. Hooray! Small blind (if I remember correctly) bet a dollar. Fearing a flush I raise $7.50, SB, with a bigger stack, goes all-in. I happily call but wince when the turn shows a spade and start praying he was betting trips.


Nope, he raised with 2s4s, nailed the fifth spade and took down the pot. Good for him. Two questions: Why would he raise me all-in with a tiny flush draw after I had shown him such strength? It's truly got me puzzled.


And two, I'd be interested to hear what you think of my raise. I think it was a good one, but quite possibly I'm wrong.


BTW, I had a stack of about $18, SB had about $34.

Was this SpicyF? He loves 24 for some reason. He's actually not that bad a player. He has a major tilt problem though. I've seen him drop $150 in a micro no limit game. As for question, I like your raise. Too bad the rabbit gotta hold of the gun.

No, wasn't Spicy. As I said, the little I've seen of his play made me think he was pretty solid until this move.


After that hand I took a couple hours off and went for a swim. Got back into the same game and called a small raise in the cutoff with AJo. The button (solid player) made another small raise. The flop came 5J5 rainbow. Checked to me, I bet a dollar. The button called and everyone else folded. The turn was a Q so now (5J5)Q with no fears of a flush. I bet $2 and got raised the same amount, which I called. The river was an A, (5J5Q)A. I threw out a $3 bet, more in an attempt to stop him going all-in than anything else (comments/flames?). He raised $10. I called, he won with pocket JJ.


So who played worse in the two hands I've mentioned, disregarding who won or lost? I believe I am the hands-down winner for bonehead play of the day contest when I called the last $10 raise, if not earlier. He was screaming trips, or at least a higher top pair, but I kept ignoring the signals.


Makes me wonder why I call with an obvious loser in NL sometimes.

Not much to do here. You played it good. His reraise is also pretty good. All though I like to have more outs when I make big plays like this. If you hadn't flopped the nuts. Let's say you have KQ or something similar. You have a very tough call and he'll prolly win it right there. And if you do call, well, he has outs.


Sincerely, Andreas

You need to fold AJo to any raise. You should probably fold AQo in the same scenario. If you do get a A73 flop. Are you happy when you get action? You're probably facing at least AK if not AA/77/33. AJ is a trap hand and should be discarded as fast as possible most of the time.


Sincerely, Andreas

Andreas: So considering I'd just made a relatively big raise, his all-in reraise with 24 spade flush draw was good? I can see it with, say, Ax spades, but doesn't he also have to worry I might be on a flush draw too?


Appreciate your comments. Paul

I'm not saying it's a good play, there are certainly better flops to gamble on. I'm just saying it isn't that horrible. But I would like the play more if he had maybe As Qs. From his point of view there are a lot of hands you'll drop here. Anything other then the straight, pair + flushdraw or a set has fairly tough calls.


Sincerely, Andreas

24o nutz!!!!!

Calling a small raise with that hand is not so bad if you have position and can get away when you flop something.


The other reason it's fine is because with your position you can often take the pot when the other players are scared after they miss.


Makes me wonder why I call with an obvious loser in NL sometimes.


Plain and simple: Your limit training is the culprit. In limit hold'em, you simply CANNOT fold in these situations. You are used to limit, I assume, and a lot of your habits will manifest when learning to play no limit. I find myself doing the same things sometimes and kicking myself later.


No limit is just not a game where you need to call on the end in case he's bluffing (unless it's an underbet, then you can make a crying call sometimes).


natedogg

What about seeing what the turn brings before you go in hard? Anyone with a flush draw or even a set will be making a huge mistake in calling a pot-sized or perhaps slightly over-bet on the turn.


lars

This situation is interesting, and fairly common. The problem with just calling the flop and firing when a "safe" card arrives is that there are so many scare cards. Any spade or any pair or any J or Q will leave you guessing if your hand is good.


Tricky spots.


Sincerely, Andreas

the problem with just calling the flop and firing when a "safe" card arrives is that there are so many scare cards


I agree. I've found that when the flop gives you a very strong hand that's still vulnerable to being cracked, it's best to get all-in immediately if possible for the reason Andreas mentioned above.


In NL that's tricky because only a drunk or someone on tilt or Cajunman will call a huge raise to win a relatively small pot without a monster himself. Or drifftaway who's been known to do it himself. So when the opportunity comes to go all-in, irregardless of whether you or your opponent makes the bet, it's got to be taken.


In the hand where my flopped str8 was cracked by a turn flush, I was very happy when my opponent raised me all-in on the flop, though the joy was fleeting in that case. But if the same situation arose again I'd play it exactly the same.


Even though I'm breaking even in NL, I'm finding it frustratingly difficult. I'm sure, all things being equal, I should be well ahead with some of the opportunities I've had. There's such a fine line between overbetting and underbetting in NL, which of course, is what makes it so fascinating. Thanks for all the comments.

You are used to limit, I assume


You assume correctly. Funny thing, I used to think I was maybe an okay limit player, never great but okay. Now when I play limit online I generally get slaughtered. And I make the dumber plays in limit generally after playing NL for awhile.


I've seen you playing both PL and limit Nate. No problem for you (or others who play both) to switch the mindset back and forth?

Switching between NL/PL and fixed limit frequenlty only hurts your game and your BR.

I don't think so. If you know how to play both, you just play the way you need to play when you're at a given table.


It's not that hard to understand the concepts.


With 22 on the button, I fold to a lone UTG raiser when playing limit.


In no limit, I call any raise up to around 10% of my stack, IF the opponent has me covered.


There are only about 10,000 of these kinds of differences, but if you know what to do, why would you not do it just because you have recently been sitting in a different kind of game?


To me it would be like taking your pawn all the way to the end of the board and triumphantly yelling "King me!" It's not that hard to keep it straight.


natedogg