K4 in BB

[Tommy Angelo]

Full $20-40 at Bay101. I was in the big blind with K-4. Two players limped, the small blind called, and I checked. Four of us to the flop with me second.

The flop was K-7-2 rainbow. The small blind checked, I checked, the third guy checked, and the last guy bet. The small blind folded, I called, and the third guy folded. Headsup now.

The turn was a 3. I checked, and he checked.

The river was an 8. I checked and he checked and I showed and won.

Let's say that on the river, you knew for sure that you had the best hand, and you knew for sure that if you checked then he would check, and you knew for sure that if you bet that he would fold.

Which is better? To bet and take it unshown? Or to check-check and show?

Tommy

[Victor]

It is better to bet and not have to show. Planting curiousity in your opponents is very advantageous.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
It is better to bet and not have to show. Planting curiousity in your opponents is very advantageous.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was similar to my original thought, which was that poker is a game of incomplete information, and by showing down in this hypothetical scenario, you're giving away information for free.

However, I now think that with a group of decent, observant players, showing that you'll check top pair on the turn might have some advantages; in other words, later on down the line you'll get to look at some rivers for free that you'd rather not pay a bet for.

-McGee

[Paluka]

I'd rather show this one down so everyone can see how badly I played it. This way they will underestimate me in the future.

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather show this one down so everyone can see how badly I played it. This way they will underestimate me in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

What part of the hand did Tommy play badly? And how would you have played it differently? For now, let's not count the river, since it seems that Tommy has a strong read on his opponent there.

[andyfox]

It's best to check-raise the flop and take it there or with a turn bet unshown. It's worst to check-check the turn and let somebody catch up and watch him stack the chips.

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
It's best to check-raise the flop and take it there or with a turn bet unshown. It's worst to check-check the turn and let somebody catch up and watch him stack the chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think standard players will often check the turn there if they have touched the board or have a pocket pair? I think it's much more common to see a turn bet and river check.

[HiatusOver]

Andy I dont think a flop check-raise here is a must. I actually think a flop call and a turn check could easily be correct. The river seems like a bet to me, but even the river isn't clear cut if Tommy has a read that the guy has absolutely nothing. The only problem I have with this hand is that Tommy actually cares at all about his hypothetical river question...pretty much a waste of time.

[dansalmo]

Since you did not show any agression in this hand I think it would be best to check and show down. If you bet and are not called, the suspicion may hurt you later in similar circumstances. I think it is best to reward passive play by your oppents. In the future, the same bettor will be more likely to check to you instead of bet, since you made it easier for him to believe that you had something and that he will get to see it.

In certain cases where a lot of agression was used, then I would opt for the bet him out on the end play.

[andyfox]

Depends how much they have touched the board. If I'm called by a Tommyesque player on a non-draw board I'll often check behind with second pair, weak kicker, or a pocket pair.

[BarronVangorToth]

Tommy, some questions:

1) Why didn't you check-raise the flop? Was the plan to check-raise the turn instead?

2) (assuming that was the plan) Why didn't you bet the river when it checked through?

Me, personally, I would've check-raised the flop and led out at the turn. Obviously, I'm not saying this is the right play, but I'm curious as to why you did what you did.

Is it because on the river you thought he would fold no matter what, so why not show him you have the goods?

Seems like a straightforward hand but your thought process I'm very curious about in this situation. I'm guessing things went haywire when you missed the check-raise on the turn?


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[andyfox]

I'll check raise here 100% of the time. I don't see the advantage of sitting around and waiting for the other guy to catch up.

On the river, even sensing the guy has absolutely nothing, I can see the merits of both betting out and checking, because his "nothing" may be high enough to call a suspected bluff bet by Tommy but safe enough to check behind hoping the hand is good enough to win.

I don't see Tommy's hypothetical question as a waste of time. If part of the game is the battle for information, whether to conceal or reveal (or "revealm") is important. But I think the problem would have solved itself had Tommy played the hand differently.

[andyfox]

"I'm guessing things went haywire when you missed the check-raise on the turn?"

I'm guessing he missed the check-call on the turn.

[James282]

Checking the turn is not reasonable, regardless of what the liars will tell you. You must bet the turn and let him call with his gutshot or small pair or whatever idiots call with to try and improve on the river. Frankly given your table image I think you should check-raise the flop and bet the turn, as Andy suggested, but I think check-calling the flop and betting the turn is reasonable as well.
-James

[CanKid]

[ QUOTE ]
The flop was K-7-2 rainbow.

[/ QUOTE ]

No straight or flush draws possible, so if someone bets, likely some form of made hand: one pair, 2 pair, set.

Out of all of those, Tommy only beats a pair of 7s or a pair of 2s, or a pocket pair below K. Tommy chops with another K4, and loses to any other K. K5 doesn't chop with Tommy as the 5 kicker will play.

I think this line is perfect, especially folding the river.

However, with a good read I think this may be a call to beat 88, A7, or 67s/87s if villian bets the river.

[CanKid]

James,


[ QUOTE ]
You must bet the turn and let him call with his gutshot or small pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it so unlikely villian has a better K, even K5s? With a K 7 2 rainbow flop, do you think the villain would bet 45/56 on the flop hoping to spike a 3 for a gutshot draw?

I think checking the turn is the only way to play this barring a good read.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll check raise here 100% of the time. I don't see the advantage of sitting around and waiting for the other guy to catch up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The advantages are watching an over-aggressive opponent bet the turn with J high drawing totally dead. I have no idea if that sort of thing is common where Tommy plays, but online it happens alot. I don't mind giving him a chance to hit his 3-outer if it gives me a chance at picking up another big bet in a tiny pot where my opponent missed completely.

I hand out free cards like nobody's business when my opponents are unobservant, have at least an average amount of aggression, and have less than 4 outs.

[schroedy]

Not to distract from the original question (I prefer bet and not show but only if I am sure I won't get a bluff raise here, and only if I am sure I am best) . . . and if you don't mind.

What is your reasoning behind being passive on the flop? My current style would be to lead this flop and keep leading until they played back. And I have noticed you have posted a few hands where I would be more aggressive than the line you post.

[schroedy]

This is the way I would play -- although my preference is to lead right out on the flop rather than going for the check raise.

But I did put the question to Tommy -- why not aggress with top pair heads up in an unraised pot?

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The flop was K-7-2 rainbow.

[/ QUOTE ]

No straight or flush draws possible, so if someone bets, likely some form of made hand: one pair, 2 pair, set.

Out of all of those, Tommy only beats a pair of 7s or a pair of 2s, or a pocket pair below K. Tommy chops with another K4, and loses to any other K. K5 doesn't chop with Tommy as the 5 kicker will play.

I think this line is perfect, especially folding the river.

However, with a good read I think this may be a call to beat 88, A7, or 67s/87s if villian bets the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't take this the wrong way. I'm honestly asking here. Do you play poker?

[Tommy Angelo]

"1) Why didn't you check-raise the flop?"

Because I pretty much don't check-raise flops.

"Was the plan to check-raise the turn instead?"

Nope. I pretty much don't checkraise turns either, unless I'm pretty sure that I am calling till the showdown (or reraising the turn) if the other guy threebets.

Tommy

[Doubling12]

"My current style would be to lead this flop and keep leading until they played back."

Is that statement invariant of pot size? Nothing is always correct - under what conditions would you *not* do this with top pair no kicker?

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
James,


[ QUOTE ]
You must bet the turn and let him call with his gutshot or small pair

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it so unlikely villian has a better K, even K5s? With a K 7 2 rainbow flop, do you think the villain would bet 45/56 on the flop hoping to spike a 3 for a gutshot draw?

I think checking the turn is the only way to play this barring a good read.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that if he raises, you can usually fold, and he'll call with all sorts of stupid draws. Tommy has pointed out a trillion times that people crawl into a shell against him. These sorts of fish will call with dumb draws but are less likely to bet them once it's HU. And don't cross-analyze what you think an unknown opponent was thinking betting into the field etc, there is no use imagining what you would do, as most of our opponents play much much worse than we do.
-James

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
"1) Why didn't you check-raise the flop?"

Because I pretty much don't check-raise flops.

"Was the plan to check-raise the turn instead?"

Nope. I pretty much don't checkraise turns either, unless I know for absolute sure that I am calling till the showdown (or reraising the turn) if the other guy threebets.

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

Sad. So I guess you're not much into thin value betting or raising? You're basically saying, "I don't use 2 of the most valuable plays in postflop hold 'em." You pretty much don't check-raise flops????
-James

[Tommy Angelo]

"Frankly given your table image I think you should check-raise the flop and bet the turn, as Andy suggested, but I think check-calling the flop and betting the turn is reasonable as well."

Catch 22. If I played as you suggest, then the image you mentioned would not exist.

Tommy

[CanKid]

Paluka,

[ QUOTE ]
Don't take this the wrong way. I'm honestly asking here. Do you play poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take this how it was intended to be taken regardless of your disclaimer, a pretty blunt insult.

Tell me what makes my post outrageous to you, I'm trying to break down Tommy's thinking, and perhaps get feedback on it - which I got.

I guess I could of summed up my post to say, "Tommy can't beat alot of real hands." Unless I totally missed some text, I don't recall reading that the villain was a bad player or a maniac, and since I don't play in LA all I can do is use the average 20/40 player I play with as the "average villain". Did Tommy say this game was like the 15/30 party which you guys are all experts of?

My question for you, if Tommy had posted this hand on another account - would you ask him the same question?

I think this post of Tommys was great for discussion since the flop was so uncoordinated and Tommy had TPWK out of position.

I've always enjoyed your posts Paluka, I wish you'd contribute something rather than post the garbage you just did.

** EDIT: Reading my initial post I take it the part you scuffed at was the uncoordinated flop and the last position bettor betting and me assuming it's a "made hand". I apologize as I should of included this; I ruled out a bluff because Tommy is in the hand, Tommy said he'd fold the river, Tommy reads people like no other - I thought if a bluff was in the equation of discussion that Tommy would need alot less than a pair to call with. When Tommy talked about check calling/check folding I used that as his "read" for us to work with.

[Turning Stone Pro]

Not check-raising the flop is incorrect. Period. It will cost you money in the long run. It is just incorrect poker, bad play, and for anyone to legitimize the same is gross.

Tommy, you might be a great writer, but you are a terrible poker player.

TSP

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I could of summed up my post to say, "Tommy can't beat alot of real hands."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is crazy to think only a hand that beats a pair of kings bets that flop. Think about the hand as if you were the limper. Some guy limps, and now you limp with whatever sort of hands you like to limp after people with. A lot of good players probably don't limp here much, but I can imagine a range of hands that everyone probably has limped with here. Now the flop comes, and everybody checks to you. You are going to tell me there aren't many hands that you would bet this flop with that don't beat a pair of kings?

[LarsVegas]

"Catch 22. If I played as you suggest, then the image you mentioned would not exist."

Oh yes it still could. If you play your flopped strong hands from the big blind in a certain way or two (mixing it up randomized between the strenght of the various holdings), with Kx as bottom of the "strong hand" group, your average hand when playing like this would still be a very good King, bordering on two pair.

I still think this is a good enough image to play it a stronger manner.

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
Full $20-40 at Bay101. I was in the big blind with K-4. Two players limped, the small blind called, and I checked. Four of us to the flop with me second.

The flop was K-7-2 rainbow. The small blind checked, I checked, the third guy checked, and the last guy bet. The small blind folded, I called, and the third guy folded. Headsup now.

The turn was a 3. I checked, and he checked.

The river was an 8. I checked and he checked and I showed and won.

Let's say that on the river, you knew for sure that you had the best hand, and you knew for sure that if you checked then he would check, and you knew for sure that if you bet that he would fold.

Which is better? To bet and take it unshown? Or to check-check and show?

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

Tommy,

Without talking about all other street and just simply stick to the river discussion, i think a check-check is fine, becasue you will get more free turn card and free river showdowns in the future of this session. and when you are on a draw (assuming your opponents aren't good enough to distinguish base on the board), receiving a free card on the turn is nice.

As for me, I check raise on the flop (like Andy suggested), most of the time.

Kenny

[CanKid]

[ QUOTE ]
You are going to tell me there aren't many hands that you would bet this flop with that don't beat a pair of kings?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, when villain checked behind on the turn I think you're completely right and I'm wrong.

River needs to get bet in this case, for value or to not show down hand.

note: long w/e of partying and sleep deprivation, combined with too much morning coffee and dull computer IT work - made my mind mushy this morning during my initial post.

I think Tommy is a bad influence on my game /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
"Catch 22. If I played as you suggest, then the image you mentioned would not exist."

Oh yes it still could. If you play your flopped strong hands from the big blind in a certain way or two (mixing it up randomized between the strenght of the various holdings), with Kx as bottom of the "strong hand" group, your average hand when playing like this would still be a very good King, bordering on two pair.

I still think this is a good enough image to play it a stronger manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

does tommy's style guarantee winning? the more i read on it, the more i think it's true.

in my never-ending-search of the way of "eliminating losing sessions", i think i start to see some light at the end of the tunnel now...

Kenny

[roy_miami]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The flop was K-7-2 rainbow.

[/ QUOTE ]

No straight or flush draws possible, so if someone bets, likely some form of made hand: one pair, 2 pair, set.


[/ QUOTE ]

In my games the button bets when checked to 99.5% of the time. Its highly likely K4 is the best hand.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is better? To bet and take it unshown? Or to check-check and show?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, but my intuition is that it depends greatly on the type of player you are, and the type of player your opponents think you are.

What I mean is, when you check and showdown a very passively played hand, you are altering your opponent's image of you. The question is, have you altered it in a good way, or a bad way? How do you know?

It seems to me that you have altered your opponent's image of you in a bad way any time you change it to be more accurate. In light of this, there is no blanket answer to which is better. For any individual player / session though, there may be a very clear answer. To find it, ask yourself:

- what kind of player am I? maniac? passive? tight? honesty is important here, obviously.
- what kind of player do my opponents THINK I am?
- which makes them more wrong, checking and showing them passive, tight tendencies, or betting and showing them loose, aggressive tendencies?

Figure out which way confirms their misguided image of you and proceed accordingly. Choose tight / passive when the decision is close.

my 2 cents.
Eric

[mmcd]

I don't see why people are advocating a flop checkraise here. This pot is most likely going to be heads up going to the turn, and he is either behind with 3 outs or more likely ahead with his opponent having anywhere from 0-5 outs. Some opponents will simply fold to flop checkraise immediately and others will call and fold the turn. Often times, however, they will fire on either the turn or the river with hands with which they would have invested a maximum of 1 additional sb had they been checkraised. By calling, you also have the additional advantage of luring the player in between into overcalling on the flop with a medium pair, a gutshot, an A with a backdoor flush draw, or some other hand that is not getting sufficient odds to draw against you. I think from a tactical standpoint check-calling the flop here is not a bad play at all.

I'll checkraise here sometimes, but only to provide some cover for the times I am checkraising with nothing (or a set) in this situation.

As for the river, I think it's entirely dependant on what you are trying to accomplish as far as image and meta-game considerations go.

[CanKid]

I agree, who wrote that first post?

jk, I got into Tommy's head during his post, and I just somehow forced myself to think im behind based on how willing Tommy seemed to want to lay that hand down.

I'm back into raise with garbage mode!

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
Not check-raising the flop is incorrect. Period. It will cost you money in the long run. It is just incorrect poker, bad play,

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? And let's try to think a little deeper than "Tommy has top pair".

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Catch 22. If I played as you suggest, then the image you mentioned would not exist."

Oh yes it still could. If you play your flopped strong hands from the big blind in a certain way or two (mixing it up randomized between the strenght of the various holdings), with Kx as bottom of the "strong hand" group, your average hand when playing like this would still be a very good King, bordering on two pair.

I still think this is a good enough image to play it a stronger manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

does tommy's style guarantee winning? the more i read on it, the more i think it's true.

in my never-ending-search of the way of "eliminating losing sessions", i think i start to see some light at the end of the tunnel now...

Kenny

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the heck would you sacrifice EV to eliminate losing sessions? Are you playing above your bankroll? None of this makes sense to me, kenny.
-James

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
"Frankly given your table image I think you should check-raise the flop and bet the turn, as Andy suggested, but I think check-calling the flop and betting the turn is reasonable as well."

Catch 22. If I played as you suggest, then the image you mentioned would not exist.

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

You should know better since you are such a table image guy. Chances are this hand will never go to showdown and you can let people think you had top two or bottom set or whatever else. Having a "weak-tight" image is fine if you can capitalize on it, but being proud because people never bet into you without top two or better and fold aces face up on the river when you have shown pretty much know aggression is a little crazy. Your strategy is basically never get paid off and never make better hands or hands drawing against you fold? Tell me what I'm missing?
-James

[esspo]

[ QUOTE ]
To bet and take it unshown? Or to check-check and show?

[/ QUOTE ]

To bet and take it unshown projects the image that you smelled weakness and have the cajones to push someone off of a small pot. *Yawn*

To check it down will let everyone at the table know that your presence in a pot for 1 sb on the flop has meaning. Hmmmm...

I wonder what is the best way to maximize profit from the mojo this type of hand creates. Would you increase your river bluffing frequency in different hands when the real reason you called the sb on the flop was you were on a draw that missed? If this is the case, it seems to me that it would be extremely important to value bet those rivers where you think your opponent will pay off with middle pair, so you could show those hands down as well.

As far as the play of the hand, the presence of the third player does make me curious about your flop call. I am thinking that he was signaling his intention to fold. If he wasn't, I don't think we really want to let 78suited or A2 have the option to call getting immediate pot-odds of 6-1 closing the action. No?

I think the trickiest situation is when the third player is signaling his intention to call. There calling would seem to be the worst option. I would either fold or if I intended to play the hand I would definitely check-raise to force the 5-outers to fold or make a big mistake and/or to see where I was at against the third player with the expensive streets yet to come. If I had no read on the third-player's intentions I would probably check-raise as well. Part of the reason for me doing so is that there isn't really anyone that I know well enough to get much information from an overcall by them simply because I am the one that they are overcalling.

As for some of the other poster's insistence that a check raise on the flop is an absolute +EV play and therefore any other line is a 100% -EV play is ridiculous. Senor Choppy and MMCD do a great job of explaining why so I won't rehash the topic. It all comes down to your judgment of what type of situation you are in. One thing I do want to point out is that the premise for your question is that you are certain what your opponent will do whether you bet or call. The sheer audacity it takes to make such a supposition is impressive. I can see I still have a long way to go.

[schroedy]

If I knew the opponent to be either a chronic bluffer or a very good player, I would go into bluff defense mode -- check/call.

I might need some education here (and I asked for it, so I already admitted it), but I don't see pot size playing into this one (with no draws out there). I think Tommy is posting these hands for some kind of subtle point about image management, or bluff inducement that I am trying to understand, so I asked for the explanation, not just the examples.

btw -- I was playing 15/30 Party last night when a somewhat similar situation came up twice in 4-5 hands. Three (including two blinds) limp to the flop, which comes A76 rainbow. First to act I bet my T9, mostly as a bluff (not a semi-bluff). 1 caller, 1 folder. Turn is a blank and I fire again (sometimes they give up). Called. River is, of course, an 8. I checked, he bet, four bets go in and his set of Aces goes up in flames. A few hands later I get the Aces and raise pre-flop. Flop is uncoordinated (A62?) and rainbow, so I check, its checked through. Turn is an 8 and I bet and am called. River is a 5 and I lose 4 bets to 97. Lesson for me -- if I think I probably have the best hand -- BET (raise)!

(both these hands were slowplays with monsters, not passive play on a small pot with TPNK . . . . Well, I can see how you want to catch bluffs and all -- Tommy's opponents are probably a lot different than mine, come to think of it . . . . I see more calling stations than bluffers,
and I would like to train these opponents to lay down marginal hands when I bet. So maybe betting right out has more value in my (10/20; 15/30; 20/40) games than in Tommy's.)

[DiceyPlay]

I think you do what you do to both set the stage for future hands and maximize your earn on the current hand. And you do this continuously while taking the past, present, and plausible future into account. You constantly maximize the combination of these two attributes of the game. You may give in one area to take in the other and vice versa.

Check-check show makes your opponents uncomfortable bluffing at you. They know they'll have to bluff again on the turn and possibly the river while not knowing where they are because you're just calling them down ... and they don't know if you're going to spring a check-raise on them at any time. This way they lack confidence on every street and this probably allows you to read them easier and make a fold on the turn or river when you're beat.

While a bet and no show just tells them you detected weakness and pounced on it on the end either with a hand or without a hand. That is standard play I think.

The former they may have minimal experience with and will have a tougher time countering. The latter they've seen before and are at least familiar with.

I think check check show is superior (if you're you). For me .. I just try not to lose too much.

[BarronVangorToth]

Tommy, thanks for the replies.

Okay, so you don't like check-raising the flop nor the turn and you planned to check-call the turn.

That happening, why didn't you bet the river?

Did you believe you'd ONLY get called by a hand that would beat you, therefore, you didn't want to invest anything.

Or, did you want to present the information that sometimes when you check-call you have the top-pair?

My thinking is that given you not check-raising the flop nor betting out at the turn, you may have gotten a bet with something like A-7.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is better? To bet and take it unshown? Or to check-check and show?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say its better to bet and not show. One of the advantages of checking in this spot is that you might put some fear in your opponents and cause them to value bet the river less in the future. From what I can tell, you are about the best in the world at knowing when you're ahead on the river and when you're behind. Therefore, free showdowns generally aren't worth as much to you as they might be to some people.

Keeping information from your opponents is vvaluable in poker. I think this was a good spot to do it.

[sublime]

From what I can tell, you are about the best in the world

evan-

tommy does have an hourly rate if you are interested /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

i am just joking of course /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is better? To bet and take it unshown? Or to check-check and show?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say its better to bet and not show. One of the advantages of checking in this spot is that you might put some fear in your opponents and cause them to value bet the river less in the future. From what I can tell, you are about the best in the world at knowing when you're ahead on the river and when you're behind. Therefore, free showdowns generally aren't worth as much to you as they might be to some people.

Keeping information from your opponents is vvaluable in poker. I think this was a good spot to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Evan, when people check-call, check check top pair it doesn't really instill fear in anybody.
-James

[Evan]

It will stop thinking opponents from value betting marginal hands. Do you not agree?

[Evan]

Awww, Sublime, I can tell you're just jealous. Okay, you twisted my arm...what's your hourly rate? /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[bigfishead]

Two things happen when checking through in this spot.

You put your opponents on notice that they cant just bet it and take it from last position. VERY important.

You make more $$ by calling when you know it is a player who will bet position often, without TP/GK etc. Your opponents "bluff randomness" goes down. Which also aloows you free cards later when you need them but dont have the pot odds to call.

Personally I see good reasons to ALSO play this hand as Tommy did. Hell I have done it myself on numerous occasions and reaped the overall benefits described.

[bigfishead]

[ QUOTE ]
Not check-raising the flop is incorrect. Period. It will cost you money in the long run. It is just incorrect poker, bad play, and for anyone to legitimize the same is gross.

Tommy, you might be a great writer, but you are a terrible poker player.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Above also makes less when ahead and loses more when behind. Nor does it help you in future hands in the same manner Tommy played it does.

Tommy is also a much better player that you think. I spent too much time around him to not know this. He helped my game tremndously. What many fail to realize is the sometimes and often deeper concepts involved in the play of given hands in certain situation with particular players/lineups. Learning to think on a deeper level that just "book" or "agression wins" is something that takes a long time to understand and develop.

Tommy has picked a random situation that happens often enough to be able to see reasons to play it in different ways. To flat out state thing like "Not check-raiseing the turn is just bad poker" is in fact bad poker, and ignorance to reasons why one can play a situation in different ways randomly.

It's very interesting that I have yet (I have not seen all responses) to see any question or statement about the lineup. This is #1 priority information IMHO.

This post from Tommy, as usual, has fired up the mind. I do enjoy being reminded of these types of situations and the different levels of thinking one can apply.

[James282]

And it will also give them a million free cards and also cause you not to get maximum value out of your best hands, do you think people would be scared of you because of this?
-James

[Evan]

I'm not saying that its the optimal way to play, or even a good way. I'm also not saying that it will cause people to be scared of me. What I am saying is that it will cause people to value bet less, I really don't think that's debatable. Just like someone that bets and raises relentlessly will warrent more calldowns, someone that check-calls very strong hands will warrent fewer bets with marginal hands.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Tommy, you might be a great writer, but you are a terrible poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did anybody else laugh out loud when they read this?

[Turning Stone Pro]

No they didn't, because it is a true statement.

TSP

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
No they didn't, because it is a true statement.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]


It had been a while since you blasted someone for no apparent reason. I thought you might be on vacation.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Turning Stone Pro]

Nope, still here. Just sick of Angelo's posts and consistently questionable poker advice. Feel it detracts from this fine site.

TSP

[sublime]

Okay, you twisted my arm...what's your hourly rate?

a pizza

[sublime]

dude-

i LMAO, it was one of the funniest things i have read on here in a while.

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, still here. Just sick of Angelo's posts and consistently questionable poker advice. Feel it detracts from this fine site.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Still waiting for your reasoning...explain why you would CR the flop.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

warrant, not warrent. right?

ahaha, i didnt even bother to check the dictionary, i just assume i can spell.

[Evan]

Another constructive post Chris. Good work. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is better? To bet and take it unshown? Or to check-check and show?


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that since you never took the lead in this hand, you don't really give up any meaningful information by showing down but perhaps you send a meanignful message to your opponents by doing so.

I've often debated a similar question. If I get a pot heads up against another opponent that I know well and have, say AKs and have been betting overcards and a flush draw all of the way and am pretty sure that I have him beat and am also pretty sure that he will fold to a river bet--IS it better to risk the extra bet to try to win w/o showing. It seems to me that it is often worth that risk. Is that simply a waste of chips for those few times that it fails or is the information concealed worth those few bets?

PT

[Tommy Angelo]

"One thing I do want to point out is that the premise for your question is that you are certain what your opponent will do whether you bet or call. The sheer audacity it takes to make such a supposition is impressive."

The premise was made up (see: "Let's say ..." from initial post)in order to isolate the question.

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
Why the heck would you sacrifice EV to eliminate losing sessions? Are you playing above your bankroll? None of this makes sense to me, kenny.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

James,

I play within my bankroll and I don't try to sacrifice +EV. I was just thinking out loud, you can surely disagree.

thanks,

Kenny

[SA125]

Those who've played with you, like mikel., say you throw chips around as much as anyone, especially from the button. Yet you always post the hands where it's like your chips were surrounded by barb wire.

Your point can't be that you should let someone else bet your hand for you. So, aside from you're river question, when you hit a hand like this from the BB, are you content to just check it down if they don't bet it for you? That can't be right. Is position that important to you that you won't even bet out with TP in a 3 way pot?

Steve A.

[Yobz]

I like this line somewhat, but for different reasons:

The line check call, check call, bet the river comes to mind.
I dont know if its only in lower limits that it works, but a lot of people will fire on the flop and turn with nothing heads up to try and steal the pot. I generally like this with Ax, but it can work decently with Kx (hope he doesn't spike an ace!)

Any comments on this?

[Tommy Angelo]

"Those who've played with you, like mikel., say you throw chips around as much as anyone,"

Interesting. I am definitely the tightest player in the world from the blinds, and probably tied for tightest in the world from UTG, UTG+1 and UTG+2, now that I've recently raised the bar in the those seats even higher. I'm guessing that if I saw the flop from the button 100% of the time in unraised pots, that I'd still see fewer flops, over the long run, at B&M poker, than any 2+2er.

"So, aside from you're river question, when you hit a hand like this from the BB, are you content to just check it down if they don't bet it for you?"

Yes.

"That can't be right."

I disagree.

"Is position that important to you that you won't even bet out with TP in a 3 way pot?"

Yes (with aces, and maybe kings if the opponents in the pot would have probably raised had they had an ace).


Tommy

[AlwaysWrong]

The River:

It seems clear that people who are trying to play like Tommy should bet the river, as it might throw people off the notion that you are super weak-tight out of position.

If you are Tommy and trying to build the legend, which will eventually lead to a huge book deal, you should check.. spread the word, free publicity.

The Flop:

The common reply is to checkraise this flop. And the common "rebuttal" is "why smartypants?" There are a few reasons to checkraise this flop:

1) For value - you plan on betting out on the turn, as you expect your opponent to often let the turn check through if you just call, so you might as well get the max bets in.

2) To spread out the range of hands your opponent can put you on when you make this play. If you only checkraise with very strong or very weak hands, observant opponents could use this against you.

3) To give future thin draws a better chance of having the flop checked through.

Now I think there are fewer reasons for a player like Tommy to checkraise this flop. Since he often checks flops with fairly strong hands, and his opponents might know this, people might start checking more flops anyways, fearing that they'll be called to death. Number two also goes away, as, well, you don't checkraise! I think number 1 still holds, and it is the primary reason for checkraising in the first place, imo, but if you disagree with the whole notion of being aggressive out of position, I don't see why you have to agree with that either.

Bottom line, a player like Tommy has less reason to checkraise this than anyone else, and perhaps no reason, given his overall strategy.

[JimmyV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tommy, you might be a great writer, but you are a terrible poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did anybody else laugh out loud when they read this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I did, of course.