No limit hands

1. 1-2-2 5 to go.


The button kills it for 5 and a very loose aggressive player rekills it UTG for 10, making it 20 to go.


All fold to me in the small blind with JJ. I simply open for 20 here. I can possibly double up my stack of 600 if I get anything. My philosophy on JJ is different than most, but let's just say I don't think a raise here is called for.


The button now makes it 100 to go.


The loose-aggressive player UTG now goes all-in for 700.


This is my chance right? I've got the goods on the over-aggressive player. But the warning bell goes off. The button has already made a play at the pot. And the LA is acting to me like he wants a call.


I fold. The button is giving me no indication and it's just not safe for me to call with him behind me after he showed strength.


Loose aggressive wins with AKo vs. QQ after QQ flops a set and the AK makes a runner-runner flush.


2. Some crazy foolish maniac ends up playing 3 handed with me in my home game. He's drunk and the stakes are kinda low for him so he's playing badly, and he's not very smart, and he looks funny too, and I don't think he knows how to read. In fact, I don't know if he even knows how to play hold'em to be honest.


He kills it on the button, and I make it 40 to go. He moves all in. I know I have him and I call instantly with AQs. I have about 1400 and he has me covered. He beats me with T9o.


My read was perfect and yet I didn't win. That seems to happen a lot more than it should. You would think that if you're reading people perfectly you would be able to beat them at poker.


3. The 1-2-2 game. I raise some limpers from the small blind with AKo by making it 50 total. A loose aggressive player who killed it hems and haws and almost folds it and then calls saying he'll give me some action. Turns out he has KK and I was completely fooled by this act.


I bet the flop for 100 and he just calls. I didn't hit the flop so I check-fold the river. He shows the KK. I felt so dumb getting suckered in like that actually believing he really had a weak drawing hand.


natedogg

Hi Natedogg,


Gold fold in hand 1, and not too much damage caused in hand 3.


The problem is obviously hand 2. From your description of your opponent he was incompetent at best, but more likely close to incapacitated.


Now i know you read him well, and had the lead when all the money went in. But I'm not sure it's a good call anyway.


If by winning the pot he may go home, or that breaks you and you can't buy back in to get the money back with interest this is a ghastly call.


AQs is not a very big favourite over many hands. Ax and Qx are the only hands it holds a real edge over, and your opponent may well have something like a pair of 4s here and be favourite.


Your AQs has a 65% chance of winning against the T9o, but you are a very good player and he is awful. If you wait a few minutes, you can likely get him to put all his money in as a very big dog, which is the smarter play. If he was a very good player then this call is better, as your edge is much smaller over time, and you take the chance.


Personally i would tend to avoid getting all my money in preflop against this guy, and wait until i have a solid hand to back with all my money. Such a player is more than willing to gamble, so you let them do it when the odds are 6 to 1 in your favour not less than 2 to 1.

Have to agree with the hand two analysis.


There's a similar story in Doyle Brunson's "according to Doyle" which is also alluded to in Super/System. Playing seven card stud Doyle got into a raising war with a drunk. The drunk turned over his hole cards - and Doyle just kept on raising eventually getting all his money in


Doyle got beat and his moral was that he should have waited - the drunk was bound to do the same thing later on but when Doyle was really loaded.


Perhaps this is one of those times to show your cards when folding? It'd probably guarantee that he'll try and raise you with garbage when you've got a big pair.

The problem is obviously hand 2. From your description of your opponent he was incompetent at best, but more likely close to incapacitated. ... but you are a very good player and he is awful.


Ha ha! Did you read that Matt?


My opponent was actually Matt Flynn who posts here sometimes and is a tough player. So my description of him was total B.S. Just talkin' a little smack is all.


In a three handed game, my call is fantastic if it's right. Matt had been pushing a little too hard preflop for a few hands and I knew with certainty my hand was good. You MUST be able to commit your stack to a read when playing three-handed no limit against aggressive players. Otherwise you cannot win. Period.


If you get all your money in as a 2-1 favorite it's never a mistake.


natedogg

Yeah sure 2 to 1 is fine against a tough player i said that. But it's bad against a lousy player who is drunk. If you can get a bad player to commmit his money as a huge dog or maybe even dead, why on earth would you take a hand thats not even 2 to 1?

I still think you shouldn't pass up an advantageous situation as long as the game isn't going to end. Although I do understand the point of what you're saying, I like to get as much money in as I can as a favorite at all times, over and over and over.


Against a really bad player, why pass up a chance to win 2/3 of the time just because you're hoping to have another chance later to win 9/10 of the time?


I don't get enough good cards to wait until I have a lock on someone, whether or not they're any good.


natedogg

Play the way you want, and if you've got an endless supply of funds thats cool. But if he gets up and leaves after winning the hand you've made a terrible mistake.


Also shipping the money to him only to have it taken off him by someone else makes you look even dumber. The third player may love your play, as it gives him the opportunity to break both of you, using your loss to the drunk against both of you.


But everyone is entitled to their opinion, and just because i think slightly less than 2 to 1 is leaving too much to fate against a guy i know i can play against with at least a 4 to 1 edge, doesn't make me right.