5 Mistakes with James

[krishanleong]

Here are some hands James coached me on last night. Each of these hands contained a mistake except for 1. On one hand I gave James the driver seat. So try and figure out my mistake on each hand.

Krishan

Hand 1----------------------------------------------

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG calls, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (10 SB) Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, UTG calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls, UTG calls.

Turn: (8 BB) 3/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises</font>, UTG folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, SB calls.

River: (14 BB) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 16 BB

Hand 2----------------------------------------------

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls, MP1 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, MP3 calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Hero calls, MP1 calls, MP3 calls.

Flop: (9.50 SB) 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
Hero checks, MP1 checks, MP3 checks, CO checks.

Turn: (4.75 BB) 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP1 bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP3 raises</font>, CO folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, MP1 folds, MP3 calls.

River: (11.75 BB) K/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP3 calls.

Final Pot: 13.75 BB

Hand 3----------------------------------------------

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Hero calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (7 SB) 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 raises</font>, Hero folds, SB calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, SB calls.

River: (7.50 BB) T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, SB folds.

Final Pot: 8.50 BB

Hand 4----------------------------------------------

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is CO with 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, Hero calls, Button calls, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: (6 SB) 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(6 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, Hero folds, <font color="#CC3333">Button raises</font>, SB folds, <font color="#CC3333">BB 3-bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button caps</font>, BB calls.

Turn: (7 BB) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises</font>, Button calls.

River: (11 BB) Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, Button calls.

Final Pot: 13 BB

Hand 5----------------------------------------------

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: (4 SB) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB folds, UTG+1 calls, MP1 folds.

Turn: (3 BB) 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 calls.

River: (5 BB) 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 calls.

Final Pot: 7 BB

Hand 6----------------------------------------------

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is BB with J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">7 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button raises</font>, SB calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, Button calls, SB calls.

Flop: (9 SB) 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button 3-bets</font>, SB folds, Hero calls.

Turn: (8 BB) 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, Hero calls.

River: (10 BB) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 12 BB

[DeeJ]

OK I'm game.

Hand 1: pfr I like but others may say fold. Flop std although you could slo-play with a safe flop. Turn ok, river missed raise? depends on opponents.

Hand 2: a little agressive considering you have the idiot end of the straight

Hand 3: I hate 55 and would fold this pf. otherwise fine

Hand 4: duh what? you have a pair and a great draw, fold for 1 bet?

Hand 5: ok

Hand 6: i'm check-folding the turn.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
a little agressive considering you have the idiot end of the straight

[/ QUOTE ]

Just making sure you see I have the nut flush redraw.

Krishan

[Evan]

Hand 1- I would limp preflop. James may kick my ass for saying that later but I don't see a great reason to raise. I also think that there's a pretty good case for raising the river.

Hand 2- Easy preflop raise. I'm definitly leaning towards leading the turn and check-3 betting seems a little out of line to me.

Hand 3- Raise preflop.

Hand 4- I would fold preflop (call if I was ont he button) and call the first flop bet.

Hand 5- The preflop completion is debatable but I think but you played the hand fine.

Hand 6- I would check-fold the turn. I don't see any reasonable hand that you beat anymore.

[DeeJ]

yeah, point taken (I saw it when I looked through but missed it on typing in) even so /images/graemlins/grin.gif a 6 may not raise on the river because he's afraid of 67 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1- I would limp preflop. James may kick my ass for saying that later but I don't see a great reason to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would too, but this got me thinking about it. I'd like to hear arguments for both sides.

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 2- Easy preflop raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's so easy about it? According to SSH, you should limp this in tight games (3-5 players on the flop). 2/4 can easily be "tight" by those standards. So shouldn't your recommendation depend on the game?

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 3- Raise preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this one depends on your read of the players behind you. If they are loose passive, I prefer a limp to a raise. If they are tight, I prefer a raise. Am I wrong here?

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
What's so easy about it? According to SSH, you should limp this in tight games (3-5 players on the flop). 2/4 can easily be "tight" by those standards. So shouldn't your recommendation depend on the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of what SSH says (and to be honest I would've guessed it said to raise) I am 100% positive you will make more money by raising this hand preflop than by limping. Also, for the purposes of guessing what advice James gave, I will bet as much as you'd like that James told the poster to raise preflop.

There's an old thread in the archives somewhere where Clark and Dynasty give great arguments for raising ATs UTG.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

hand 1's raise really depends on the looseness of the original limper and the tightness of the blinds. getting it heads up in position with A high against a loose limper with dead money in the blinds makes this a very easy raise if the situation calls for it. i've been making this raise for a long while now.

[Evan]

Without a read on the blinds as tight I will assume that I'm not often getting it HU by raising.

[krishanleong]

CDC is right on the money. Limper was 56/8. The raise preflop is really easy even if the blinds are not tight. The mistake in this hand is not preflop.

Krishan

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
Without a read on the blinds as tight I will assume that I'm not often getting it HU by raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

word, but you're still in position with a good hand anyways. it wouldnt' surprise me if the raise was +EV on equity alone in this spot.

[Evan]

I think the limper's stats are kind of relevant here.

Also, I think raising the river is much more important which is why I didn't go into the preflop play for a long time.

[krishanleong]

Evan,

You are right, not raising the river was my mistake in this hand. Can you explain why raising the river is correct? For everyone elses benefit.

Krishan

[Evan]

Let's do it by process of elimination:

Hands that beat you are 45, AQ, or any set.

The only sets that he could have would've capped the turn.
45 doesn't 3 bet preflop.
AQ may well have played that way to a point, but if AQ was intending to lead the river it would've capped the turn.


There's really just no hand that he can have that beats you.

[jonahmavesin]

Hand 1 - Limp preflop. Might have missed a raise there on the end, but I can see starting to get scared of AA or QQ at this point. EDIT - yes, I see that Evan.

Hand 2 - Don't know what I think about Evan's idea of raising preflop. But I think not leading the turn is a bigger miss.

Hand 3 - I think this is the OK one.

Hand 4 - Raise the flop to try and isolate the bettor with lots of redraws. Might even have the best hand if you can get it HU.

Hand 5 - Yeah, I don't like the preflop complete.

Hand 6 - Just call preflop. I like the flop raise, but I'd check fold the turn.

[krishanleong]

Perfect, a set or AQ would cap the turn 95% of the time. The river doesn't change anything. I just wussed out. And improving my hand reading skills is one thing I know I need to work on.

Krishan

[jordanx]

Hand 1. I'd open-raise this hand but with a UTG caller just limp pre-flop, A6 is easily dominated. I think you are up against AK. AQ, QQ, AA, likely would've capped the turn.

2. See.. here I'd open raise.

3. Looks ok.

4. I'd raise the flop bet. But likely fold if it came back to me capped.

5. I don't play K9o too often.

6.Depending on read, I might fold this pre-flop. Likely wouldn't 3-bet it here. Likely check fold the turn.

[DeeJ]

AQ may not cap the turn due to the risk of a set and the flush draw if they are at all passive .... I can remember the old me (when 2/4 was new to me) playing this way.

The current me would cap /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
AQ may not cap the turn due to the risk of a set and the flush draw if they are at all passive

[/ QUOTE ]
Then they wouldn't bet the river. The river card either improved his hand (A2) or he is making a last effort bluff. You are good here very close to every time.

[DeeJ]

They would bet the river if they had been worried about the flush (Villain can see AK /images/graemlins/club.gif monsters under the bed) but then bet having been relieved it didn't hit the river.

I do agree that the river raise is the better line tho the majority of the time.

[DMBFan23]

Hand 1. if UTG is a bad player then this is a pretty easy raise for me. I'd rather play heads up in position than 4 way, especially because my hand is good, but not awesome. I'm torn on the turn 3 bet, the call-checkraise line is something that reminds me a lot of top two or a set. do most 2/4ers get that jiggy with something like AT/AJ? looks like AQ to me, although QQ maybe as well.

Hand 2. raise pf? it'd be a little easier to not put someone on a 6 that way, but I tend to assume another ace here. I'd also bet the flop. (given that I raised pf)

Hand 3. borderline limp pf after only one limper.

Hand 4. hmm, looks good? if you're not ahead (likely) then your outs are dirty as hell, and your equity cannot be that high.

Hand 5. loose complete, but postflop is good.

Hand 6. calling the turn and folding that river are bad together. it either has to go call-call or fold. I fold.

[btspider]

hand 1:
i think i just call the turn check-raise after a total blank comes. that seems like an odd line for AK..

hand 2:
betting the turn seems right to me. i don't understand the check-3bet. you're probably splitting at best UI.

hand 3:
i often fold this PF w/o a read. postflop is fine obviously.

hand 4:
i fold PF.

hand 5:
looks good

hand 6:
i just call PF. fold the turn.

[Entity]

I'm really getting the feeling I should look into hiring James soon.

Rob

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]

hand 3:
i often fold this PF w/o a read. postflop is fine obviously.

hand 4:
i fold PF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect. Both of these are preflop folds.

Hand 3 - I am a little loose with small pp in mp/lp. I should tighten up a bit when I don't have enough limpers. I think I have trouble because I limp UTG every time and my brain has trouble with hands that are playable in EP and not in MP. But I can learn.

Hand 4 - I think I needed 1 more limper to make this call.

Only hands 5 and 6 to go. And 1 of those is played correctly.

Krishan

[DMBFan23]

totally worth it.

[krishanleong]

I agree, even if he charged 100$, I would still utilize his services. I'm planning on asking for another lesson in 5/10 SH soon. It's definitely an interesting experience.

I've played 120K hands of 2/4 and I have a lot to think about and improve on. Self-analysis and introspection does not yield as good results.

Krishan

[Evan]

You should.

[stoxtrader]

Without looking at the rest of the thread -

hand 1 - easy isolation raise if limper is loose. if limper is tight, i't probably a fold as he limped from UTG. post-flop you have the option of calling the flop and raising the turn as well. I don't like a river raise unless I have SB pegged as aggressive.

hand 2 - raise pre-flop (this will affect your post-flop play). but the mistake here is the 3 bet on the turn.

hand 3 - well played.

hand 4 - this is a tough hand. pre-flop is fine. the flop is where I'm unsure. I like the fold.

hand 5 - check the flop, this falls under way ahead or way behind.

hand 6 - call the flop, raise a non-diamond turn is one actino, but steal situations are so player dependant that its a tough thing to say what the best default is.

[jailhousejoe]

I'm going for hand 5 being fine. Unless you're shown otherwise, I'd be assuming I'm in front. No raise on the turn means to definitely bet for value on the river.

Hand 6 should be folded on the turn. You got no redraw, and this player was firing from the flop and hasnt stopped, in spit of your flop re-raise.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
check the flop, this falls under way ahead or way behind.


[/ QUOTE ]

Check the flop with the intent to call? cr? If it's check through, lead the turn?

Krishan

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]

hand 5 - check the flop, this falls under way ahead or way behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
wtf

[krishanleong]

He is correct, this was the advice James gave. The question is what is the rational?

Krishan

[Evan]

I suppose no one that you are beating is drawing very live against you, 3 outs at best. The opportunity to let someone make a pair on the turn may well be worth checking the flop.

[stoxtrader]

easy, check/call the flop and turn. possibly lead the river, player dependant.

you will make much more here over the long run by risking a free ace in return for inducing bluffs and minimizing losses when behind.

[DMBFan23]

well shi*, this means that hand 6 was fine. Still got a lot to learn...

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

hand 5 - check the flop, this falls under way ahead or way behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
wtf

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf

[Evan]

So much content in those 3 little letters, isn't there?

[Knoler]

I'll take a crack then read the answers.

Hand 1: questionable PF raise.
Hand 2: raise PF.
Hand 3: OK
Hand 4: Really bad flop fold; should probably raise.
Hand 5: Loose complete in SB.
Hand 6: Hm. Folding PF probably isn't wrong, but I suck at blind defense. Folding on the flop after the button 3 bets it would probably be good.

Regards,
-Brian

[jailhousejoe]

again it depends on the person you're playing against, and your read on them. SSH tells you to bet in this situation unless youre shown reason not to, if i remember correctly, and the this is an alternate (and more profitable) view, for those sitautions when you're really not sure.
way ahead or way behind (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=14423&amp;m_id=65551)

[afk]

Hand 1: I just call the turn c/r.
Hand 2: I raise preflop and see where is goes from there.
Hand 3:Is hero's hand 3 pf limp of 55 that bad all around? Or is it table dependent. I so totally usually make this limp.
Hand 4 and 5: I usually fold both of these before the flop.
Hand 6: I'm not sure how I'd play this quite yet.

[krishanleong]

Close, his advice was to cr the flop. (In think that's what he said) It's definitely a way ahead or way behind. The idea is you have dominant equity. You won't be outdrawn on very often with a drawless flop. By checking the flop, you risk giving a free card, but your hand isn't that vunerable. So someone might make a second best hand when you lead the turn and call down when they might have folded the flop.

Krishan

[btspider]

(hand 5)

i guess i get it. the only draw is the flush draw, which has enough equity on the flop anyway.. and could put you in a rough spot if it raises the flop and bets the turn HU. you don't mind if the flush or most other hands (2-3 outers) take a free card in this small pot.

what do you do if someone with position 3-bets your check-raise and bets the turn HU? fold? calldown?

[krishanleong]

Hand 6 was funny. I never call down 4 flush board like this. James made me do it.

Here is the thing. 8bb on the turn. I'm getting 2-12 effective odds to call down. it's heads up. I only need to be good here 1 in 6. James said since there was so much action on the flop, there is a good chance he just had a pair. This lessons his chances of having a flush. Of course some people will jam the flop with the Ad but he said I would see a profit long term by calling down 4-flush board with TPTK when the pot is this large.

All this while I'm hating clicking the call button. Then villian flips over Qc9c for the busted open ended straight draw and MHIG. James got lucky there but his 1 in 6 looks plausible. I'm inclined to believe him and try calling down more on 4-flush boards. I just have to be careful and pick my spots.

I think my preflop 3-bet against a steal-raise is easy.

Also these mistake are probably not the only ones in the hands. They are just the ones we talked about.

Krishan

[btspider]

can you give a brief summary of what the session structure was like?

sounds like it was much more than just a HH review.

[afk]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the thing. 8bb on the turn. I'm getting 2-12 effective odds to call down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you getting 10-2 effective odds? 8BB on turn, you expect to win 2 more (10) and expect to pay 2 more (10-2).

In any case, would your play on hand 6 change if the other guy had stayed in?

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm inclined to believe him and try calling down more on 4-flush boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can attest that James has made me do a bit more calling down on those kinds of boards and it has helped. I would've folded in your spot and I'm not completely convinced that I like the way James advocates playing it so maybe I'll have to bring that up with him later. I do agree completely with the statement I quoted though.

[krishanleong]

Ha, yes 10-2. So I need to be good 20% of the time.

Krishan

[krishanleong]

You open 4 tables and identify them as 1, 2, 3, 4. Then as your interesting cards come (Not all) you IM them to James. Examples:

1-KQ
2-AJh
4-33

I 12 table so 4 isn't a problem in terms of concentration and following the action. If you take a while on a hand, James usually chimes in with advice, ideas, etc... You can go your own route of follow James' advice.

We also talked strategy during the lulls. Whether T9o, 98o is playable on the button. Random stuff.

The 4-flush board was really the only hand I let James drive. It was so foreign to me.

Krishan

[brettbrettr]

Who is this James you speak of?

[Joe Tall]

would your play on hand 6 change if the other guy had stayed in?

It should.

Go Pats!
Joe Tall

[Evan]

What is your salutation going to become if the Pats lose on Sunday?

[krishanleong]

Here is a link to a thread.

link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1606205&amp;page=0&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=9&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1)

[jonahmavesin]

Could you elaborate on that point? Limp EP but fold MP?

I imagine you mean because once you're MP you can see that you're not getting limpers. But at the same time, you also are more assured there will be no raises. I would imagine that is worth something as well.

I guess I'm arguing that I can see folding MP if you aren't seeing enough limp action, but that I don't see why you would limp it early just because you lack information on the action to come.

[krishanleong]

I only play small pp for set value.
I play them early because I'm assuming I'll get enough limpers. I don't play them late because I know I don't have enough limpers. I admit this seems to be a bit of a contradiction. I'm learning this part right now.

Also I do know that pocket pairs are at their worst against a small field. (2-3)

Maybe someone else can clarify this.

Krishan

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Close, his advice was to cr the flop. (In think that's what he said) It's definitely a way ahead or way behind. The idea is you have dominant equity. You won't be outdrawn on very often with a drawless flop. By checking the flop, you risk giving a free card, but your hand isn't that vunerable. So someone might make a second best hand when you lead the turn and call down when they might have folded the flop.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are talking about hand 5, I don't get this at all.

[jonahmavesin]

That makes sense. And actually, my point about the raise isn't really relevant. Sure you're prefer not to play the pp for a set for two bets, but if there were enough limpers, you'd actually welcome the larger pot. So really the only worry about the raise is if it comes too early and limits limpers, or if it folds the blinds. But as you say, the critical point is still just how many players to the flop, not as much the number of bets, since your set should hold up when it hits.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with 5, 5.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 3 folds, Hero calls, 2 folds, SB raises, 1 fold, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (7 SB) 2, K, A (3 players)
SB bets, UTG+1 raises, Hero folds, SB calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 8 (2 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 bets, SB calls.

River: (7.50 BB) T (2 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 bets, SB folds.

Final Pot: 8.50 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've got a pocket pair. One crappy player has limped to you in MP.

If the blinds are tight, you've probably got a raise here, but let's assume they're not since this is 2/4.

If the two players behind you fold, you will be against a crappy limper and 1 or 2 blinds (usually 2). You'll be getting 3:1 on your preflop money and you'll have the button and the best hand on many flops. This is a great situation and if you think it's not you're crazy.

Let's say one of the players behind you raises. Then you'll be getting 2.75 to 5:1 depending on SB's willingness to coldcall, and you'll have great relative position to the PFR when you hit your set. You'll need to make 3-4 BB postflop when you hit your set to justify the limp--this is easy when the blinds come along and likely even when they don't (especially since the EP limper is apparently a horrible player).

If it's folded to SB, SB raises and BB calls--now you've got great position relative to the raiser, a horrible player trapped between you, the button, and 3:1 on your preflop money. This is a good situation as well.

If people behind you limp and nobody raises, you're getting great odds preflop and you're happy.

So, the only situation that you really don't like is when everybody folds to the SB AND the SB raises AND the BB folds. And even then you have a PP and the button.

Folding this preflop is a not so great.

scrub

[btspider]

certainly you don't feel bad about calling the second bet if someone raises behind you... but isn't the primary reason to fold (the first time) because you hate when someone raises behind since the full effect is you put in 2 bets and can likely only continue if you hit your set?

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
certainly you don't feel bad about calling the second bet if someone raises behind you... but isn't the primary reason to fold (the first time) because you hate when someone raises behind since the full effect is you put in 2 bets and can likely only continue if you hit your set?

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that my numbers are the actual price you're getting on your preflop limp, not the odds you're getting on calling the raise.

scrub

[MaxPower]

Thank you scrub. I thought I was going crazy.

I would raise here most of the time. I'm not sure about 2/4, but at 3/6 and above you will get it heads-up or 3 handed most of the time. If not, call.

[frank_iii]

[ QUOTE ]
You open 4 tables and identify them as 1, 2, 3, 4. Then as your interesting cards come (Not all) you IM them to James.

I 12 table so 4 isn't a problem in terms of concentration and following the action. If you take a while on a hand, James usually chimes in with advice, ideas, etc... You can go your own route of follow James' advice.

We also talked strategy during the lulls. Whether T9o, 98o is playable on the button. Random stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this scares me. I must be doing something wrong. How are you getting lulls long enough to chat while 12-tabling?! I 4-table $2/$4 and have enough lull to be able to occasionally do some 2+2 reading but I'd generally rather focus on the action. Or are you only 4-tabling during your sessions?

[stoxtrader]

I don't like a raise here. I would overlimp with 22 tho.

[DeeJ]

With 1 limper I fold the lowest pairs. You need to hit a set if you are raised, and if you raise you then need to play 55 for hand strength alone, which is difficult because you are likely faced with 2 or 3 overcards which you have little or no clue whether you are ahead or behind.

FWIW, 55 is my worst performing hand and I'm taking drastic measures /images/graemlins/blush.gif like folding it preflop in situations like this /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[krishanleong]

I was only playing 4 when chatting with James. I only play 12 on my own. And there are only occasional lulls then.

Krishan

[DeeJ]

This is a great thread krishnan. And I was first to respond /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I learned (so far) that I am not too far off beam in interpreting hands, but didn't understand the principle of way-ahead/way-behind. Which I now do.

Hat tip. http://forums.game2xs.com/images/smilies/bow.gif

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, 55 is my worst performing hand and I'm taking drastic measures /images/graemlins/blush.gif like folding it preflop in situations like this /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Overlimping here isn't what's making it your worst performing hand.

Do you get psychotic with it when stealing or defending?

scrub

[DeeJ]

I went into some depth to find out why this was. Part of it (why it is my worst performing hand) was because I had spent money on sets which turned out to be no good (flushes, straights, over-sets) making it just unlucky.

But I was also playing it too early, limping in, and then having to call raises. And missing the flop 8/9 of the time with basically very little is tough. You can't even get 55 suited.

What's your worst performing hand /images/graemlins/wink.gif and why?

[Joe Tall]

I would raise here most of the time. I'm not sure about 2/4, but at 3/6 and above you will get it heads-up or 3 handed most of the time. If not, call.

Hi Jonathan, hope things are well.

You are talking about the 55 hand, correct? This thread may be a good one if everyone made a note on what fcking hand they were talking about. I'm too lazy to decipher the lack of continuity, anywho...

The 55 hand, raising is fine, folding is fine, calling is fine. What it comes down to is game conditions as you have said. Calling is no mistake unless you've got hyper-aggressive players to act behind you where ther is often raises and 3-bets. However, even then you should be around neutral EV.

If you are not talking about the 55 hand, well, ignore what I said and have a nice day.

Go Pats!
Joe Tall

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I went into some depth to find out why this was. Part of it (why it is my worst performing hand) was because I had spent money on sets which turned out to be no good (flushes, straights, over-sets) making it just unlucky.

But I was also playing it too early, limping in, and then having to call raises. And missing the flop 8/9 of the time with basically very little is tough. You can't even get 55 suited.

What's your worst performing hand /images/graemlins/wink.gif and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I played 3/6 it was T8s. I think it was because my win % with it was 4.5% over 30,000 hands.

Hand EV calculations take forever to converge, so I don't worry about them that much. I've had 10,000 hand stretches where JJ was worth more than AA or AKo was barely a winner.

The only time I found looking through hand values in pokertracker helpful was when I switched to shorthanded, and it was because I was playing my small PPs like a lunatic and losing a ton with them.

scrub

[Joe Tall]

I was playing my small PPs like a lunatic and losing a ton with them.

That's because you are a lunatic. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I was playing my small PPs like a lunatic and losing a ton with them.

That's because you are a lunatic. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhhhh.....

scrub

[Lurker4]

great thread guys, I have learned a lot from all of the responses. Could someone post the link to the thread where Clark and Dynasty make arguments for raising ATs UTG, or at least give me something close to the thread title so I can search archives for it.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Could someone post the link to the thread where Clark and Dynasty make arguments for raising ATs UTG, or at least give me something close to the thread title so I can search archives for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I recently had a discussion with some friends about raising ATs UTG, so I also would really appreciate this link as well. If anyone has any idea how to find it, please help. I've searched but haven't found the thread.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
The river card either improved his hand (A2) or he is making a last effort bluff. You are good here very close to every time.

[/ QUOTE ]
How often we are good is irrelevent. Most of the time we are good it is because he is making a desparate bluff (as you indicate), and that isn't calling the raise anyway. In order to decide whether to raise, what matters is how often he will pay us off with a worse hand vs. how often he has us beat (and whether he will three-bet if we are beat). The fact that we are good the majority of the time here doesn't matter because when he is bluffing we gain little by raising (all we gain is not having to show our hand). I agree with others that his play isn't very consistent with hands that have us beat. However, it also isn't very consistent with hands that we are beating and that are about to pay us off. Frankly, the river bet after calling the turn three-bet isn't really consistent with much of anything except maybe a bluff. I don't like the river raise. I think we are beat too often, regardless of the actual results this time. Even if you like the raise, rationalizing it by saying that he is likely to be bluffing or by saying that his play is inconsistent with hands that beat us but ignoring the fact that it is also inconsistent with hands that will pay us off is very unconvincing.

[MaxPower]

Hi Joe,

I was talking about the 55 hand.

I think a raise works best against loose but passive opponents who will let you control the hand.

I am not finding too many of these players in the 15/30 game so maybe I should stop raising in these spots.

Take it easy.

[elindauer]

Hand 1: fold preflop
Hand 2: looks good. You could consider raising this preflop.
Hand 3: fold preflop
Hand 4: terrible flop fold
Hand 5: awfully weak hand to complete. Check the flop.
Hand 6: looks good. 3-betting AJ preflop is pretty aggressive, but OK.


my 2 cents.
Eric


poker lessons: www.ericlindauer.com/poker.html (http://www.ericlindauer.com/poker.html)

[me454555]

Hand 2: Raise pf, other than that its fine
Hand 3: I can't really find a mistake in hand 3
Hand 4: Given that bb bet out, I think you can raise this as he may have just a 9
Hand 5: Toss pf, but I'd play it the same postflop
Hand 6: Toss it on the turn

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with 5, 5.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 3 folds, Hero calls, 2 folds, SB raises, 1 fold, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (7 SB) 2, K, A (3 players)
SB bets, UTG+1 raises, Hero folds, SB calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 8 (2 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 bets, SB calls.

River: (7.50 BB) T (2 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 bets, SB folds.

Final Pot: 8.50 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've got a pocket pair. One crappy player has limped to you in MP.

If the blinds are tight, you've probably got a raise here, but let's assume they're not since this is 2/4.

If the two players behind you fold, you will be against a crappy limper and 1 or 2 blinds (usually 2). You'll be getting 3:1 on your preflop money and you'll have the button and the best hand on many flops. This is a great situation and if you think it's not you're crazy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Overcards are going to flop WAY too much. The problem with a hand like 55 is playability. The one crappy limper could have anything, as could the blinds (they're blinds, after all). Granted, you will have the best hand on the flop a lot of the time, but you will almost never know it. To get value out of the times when you DO have the best hand, you will have to make uncomfortable calls in a small pot. If you bet with the best hand, you are likely to be called in several places by overcards. The pot is small, and your risk of being outdrawn on most flops is high.

This being 2/4, your opponents are likely to call with any piece of the board (8 overcards, 3 undercards), so the value of outplaying in position and inducing a better hand to fold is limited.

All in all, this seems like a lot of situations I would like to avoid. Thoughts?

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
How often we are good is irrelevent.

[/ QUOTE ]
When you write that as the first line in a post concerning a river raise I can only think that you don't want me to read the rest. Seriously that is retarded.

By being good "very clsoe to every time" I meant somewhere in the 95% range. Even the most elementary hand reading could tell you that you should raise the river. If you don't see that then fine, but don't attack me like an idiot for telling you that it is the case.

You seem to be sure that we are beat here some high proportion of the time. What hand do you think he plays this way that beats us? Seriously, there just isn't one that will occur often enough to justify calling the river.

Also, I did not rationalize it by saying, "He will be bluffing a lot so we should raise." I explained that hands that may think they are best would also bet this river but no hand that beat us would've gotten to that point in that manner AND bet the river.

If you don't want to agree with me then that's fine, I honestly don't care.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How often we are good is irrelevent.

[/ QUOTE ]
When you write that as the first line in a post concerning a river raise I can only think that you don't want me to read the rest. Seriously that is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then, frankly, you don't understand river play very well. This is not an advanced concept; this is the basics of how to make a decision heads up on the river closing the action. Having him beat the majority of the time, even if it is 90% or whatever you think it is, doesn't matter. What matters is how often we have him beat and he will pay off a raise. I was pointing out that your mention of this likely being a "desparation bluff" is true, but completely irrelevent. If you can't see why that isn't "retarded", you really need to work on your river play.
[ QUOTE ]
What hand do you think he plays this way that beats us?

[/ QUOTE ]
You keep asking this, but refusing to ask the converse question: what hands does he play this way that doesn't have us beat and calls a raise? You need to look at both questions and see which scenario is more likley. The fact that he is unlikely to have us beat does not turn this into a raise if he is even more unlikely to have a hand that we beat and that will pay off. From the way the hand played out, there is a reasonable chance he has AA, QQ or AQ. Maybe he didn't cap the turn because he wanted to see that the flush didn't get there because he is moderately timid player. Maybe he thought he would get more action by waiting until the river, betting into us and hoping we would foolishly raise again so he could three-bet, which in this case would have been correct. Is him having AA, QQ or AQ extremely likely? No. But it's not likely that he would play this way with any hand. And he did. So what matters is whether these hands are more likely than him having three-bet preflop with A2, check-raised with it on the turn and then bet out with it on the river, and they clearly are. He could be doing something goofy with AK or AT or who knows what, but given the way this played out those hands are very unlikely. And even if he has A2/AK/whatever as often as he has AA/QQ/AQ, we still can't raise the river because those hands will three-bet us and we are probably stuck calling, which means that the raise is risking two bets to win one.

[James282]

Hey bobby, not raising the river is a big mistake. It might be a full 1 BB mistake. That's a pretty big mistake. He'll pay off any ace, any Q, any pair, come on, man.
-James

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
He'll pay off any ace, any Q, any pair, come on, man.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that if he has those hands he will pay off. I'm not saying that, having bet an ace on the end, he is going to fold it for one bet if we raise. I'm saying the chance of someone having an ace, getting three-bet with on the turn and then deciding to stop-and-go with it like this is really small. This sort of stop-and-go betting pattern usually indicates either a big hand trying to get excessive action or some sort of crazy bluff. Against the latter, we gain nothing by raising (except for not having to show our hand), and against the former it costs us money. Our two pair looks pretty so I understand the temptation to want to raise, but this looks to me like a classic case where we aren't ahead the majority of the time that we are called. Note also that his preflop three-bet from the SB pushes things more in favor of AA, QQ and AQ as likely holdings.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that, having bet an ace on the end, he is going to fold it for one bet if we raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

=/=

[ QUOTE ]
this looks to me like a classic case where we aren't ahead the majority of the time that we are called.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a bad way to play any hand. The person that did this is not good at limit Texas Hold'em. You must understand that to take advantge of people like this.

There are 15 possile hands that beat us while there are 1978 hands that we beat. Insisting on passing up river raises in spots like this is your option but its just clearly wrong.

I don't understand river play though. Neither does James.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with 5, 5.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 3 folds, Hero calls, 2 folds, SB raises, 1 fold, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (7 SB) 2, K, A (3 players)
SB bets, UTG+1 raises, Hero folds, SB calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 8 (2 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 bets, SB calls.

River: (7.50 BB) T (2 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 bets, SB folds.

Final Pot: 8.50 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've got a pocket pair. One crappy player has limped to you in MP.

If the blinds are tight, you've probably got a raise here, but let's assume they're not since this is 2/4.

If the two players behind you fold, you will be against a crappy limper and 1 or 2 blinds (usually 2). You'll be getting 3:1 on your preflop money and you'll have the button and the best hand on many flops. This is a great situation and if you think it's not you're crazy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Overcards are going to flop WAY too much. The problem with a hand like 55 is playability. The one crappy limper could have anything, as could the blinds (they're blinds, after all). Granted, you will have the best hand on the flop a lot of the time, but you will almost never know it. To get value out of the times when you DO have the best hand, you will have to make uncomfortable calls in a small pot. If you bet with the best hand, you are likely to be called in several places by overcards. The pot is small, and your risk of being outdrawn on most flops is high.

This being 2/4, your opponents are likely to call with any piece of the board (8 overcards, 3 undercards), so the value of outplaying in position and inducing a better hand to fold is limited.

All in all, this seems like a lot of situations I would like to avoid. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then avoid them. A player who plays well after the flop will make money in this situation, though.

scrub

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 15 possile hands that beat us while there are 1978 hands that we beat...
I don't understand river play though. Neither does James.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think that adding up the number of combinations of hands that we beat vs. the number that beat us is the way to make a river decision, then yes I agree that you don't understand river play. I'll admit that that technique does have the advantage of being simpler than actually weighting those combinations by how your opponent played the hand and what he is likely to hold. You can just raise the river with any pair, and then when your results aren't as good as you like, you can say that it's not your fault because "these low limit players could have anything" and because learning to recognize situations where a pretty-looking probably isn't best (despite there being relatively few combinations of hands that beat you) is "seeing monsters under the bed" and, of course, only sissies do that. I'm suddenly reminded why I so rarely post on the small stakes forum.

[Evan]

Obviously the rfact that we beat a random hand is not rationale for raising the river. Basic hand reading will tell you that you should raise.

Don't do it. I don't care. Ridiculous posts like these are why I confine most of my strategy discussion to AIM. Its a shame.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
It might be a full 1 BB mistake. That's a pretty big mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
And calling this a full 1 BB mistake is absurd. For that to be the case, it would need to be true that we have our opponent beat 100% of the time and he will pay us off every time (technically not true because he might three-bet with a worse hand a we pick up two bets, but that is very unlikley). That's just ridiculous. I can accept that against some coplete nut case opponents a raise is right here, but barring a read, this is certainly a somewhat close decision. Especially given that we lose two bets when we raise and he has us beat, and that he will fold if he is bluffing netting us no bets, there is no way that not raising here could be anywhere close to a 1 BB mistake, if it were a mistake at all.

Unless you are being results-oriented and saying that on the occassions where he had us beat and would pay off, calling would be a 1 BB. But that's just silly as I could then just as truthfully say that "raising might be a 2 BB mistake".

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
Ridiculous posts like these are why I confine most of my strategy discussion to AIM. Its a shame.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost as retarded as bobbyi's advice. Once you explain the stuff and other people explain it, and it still isn't getting through, just simply tell the person "you're wrong" and move on. If people don't want to get better, then there's nothing you can do. Leaving the forums where there is a public and free flowing exchange of ideas to discuss in private, because someone doesn't/refuses to agree doesn't seem constructive or appropriate.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Basic hand reading will tell you that you should raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I am done with this discussion. I have explained, repeatedly, why "basic hand reading" shows that raising here is a clear mistake (he is either trying to get excessive action with a monster or bluffing and either way we gain nothing by raising) and haven't yet seen any argument for what we are beating that involves any element of hand reading or what you are putting the opponent on that pays off a raise (note: "I have two pair and it is a good hand so I raise" is not hand reading). I really have nothing else to add. The argument for just calling the river is fairly simple, and I understand that if you don't get it by this point, I would be wasting everyone's time by restating it over and over again in more posts. You like the raise. Fine. I get it. You haven't actually given a real defense of it, but I can see that you aren't interested in doing so, and I really don't care that much so I guess we are done here. I'll move on to another thread where hopefully people can find better rationales for their plays than petty name-calling ("raising is right because calling with two pair is retarded"). I remember now that the reason I post on mid- and high-stakes (in addition to the fact that that's what I play) is that it isn't inhabitted entirely my immature college kids who play and discuss poker primarily to show off how big their balls are.

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with 5, 5.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 3 folds, Hero calls, 2 folds, SB raises, 1 fold, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (7 SB) 2, K, A (3 players)
SB bets, UTG+1 raises, Hero folds, SB calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 8 (2 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 bets, SB calls.

River: (7.50 BB) T (2 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 bets, SB folds.

Final Pot: 8.50 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've got a pocket pair. One crappy player has limped to you in MP.

If the blinds are tight, you've probably got a raise here, but let's assume they're not since this is 2/4.

If the two players behind you fold, you will be against a crappy limper and 1 or 2 blinds (usually 2). You'll be getting 3:1 on your preflop money and you'll have the button and the best hand on many flops. This is a great situation and if you think it's not you're crazy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Overcards are going to flop WAY too much. The problem with a hand like 55 is playability. The one crappy limper could have anything, as could the blinds (they're blinds, after all). Granted, you will have the best hand on the flop a lot of the time, but you will almost never know it. To get value out of the times when you DO have the best hand, you will have to make uncomfortable calls in a small pot. If you bet with the best hand, you are likely to be called in several places by overcards. The pot is small, and your risk of being outdrawn on most flops is high.

This being 2/4, your opponents are likely to call with any piece of the board (8 overcards, 3 undercards), so the value of outplaying in position and inducing a better hand to fold is limited.

All in all, this seems like a lot of situations I would like to avoid. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then avoid them. A player who plays well after the flop will make money in this situation, though.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you elaborate please? I was really hoping to trigger some kind of discussion.

I don't like this play at 2/4 for the following reasons:
At this limit, you are more likely than normal to get cold callers behind you. The value of buying the button is diminished with loose opponents behind you. Even if you do buy the button, the BB and limper are a favorite to call your raise preflop and continue calling if they make any reasonable sort of hand. Most all of these hands beat your unimproved pocket pair. In small stakes games, you usually need to show down the best hand to win.

In my opinion, this strategy would be more plausible at a higher limit table where opponents were more likely to respond to your tactical maneuverings postflop.


Assuming unknown, loose/passive opponents, what kinds of scenarios are you hoping to get into that don't involve flopping a set?

--donger

[private joker]

I like hand 1, but the reason you're supposed to raise with A6s is so that you can flop the nuts and raise with confidence. See, next time do this:

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, CO calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls, CO calls.

Flop: (6.50 SB) J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, K/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets</font>, Hero calls, BB calls.

Turn: (4.75 BB) 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, BB folds, CO calls.

River: (8.75 BB) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
CO checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, CO folds.

Final Pot: 9.75 BB

I need to have James tell me how to keep the other guys in the hand longer, though.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with 5, 5.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 3 folds, Hero calls, 2 folds, SB raises, 1 fold, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (7 SB) 2, K, A (3 players)
SB bets, UTG+1 raises, Hero folds, SB calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 8 (2 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 bets, SB calls.

River: (7.50 BB) T (2 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 bets, SB folds.

Final Pot: 8.50 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've got a pocket pair. One crappy player has limped to you in MP.

If the blinds are tight, you've probably got a raise here, but let's assume they're not since this is 2/4.

If the two players behind you fold, you will be against a crappy limper and 1 or 2 blinds (usually 2). You'll be getting 3:1 on your preflop money and you'll have the button and the best hand on many flops. This is a great situation and if you think it's not you're crazy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Overcards are going to flop WAY too much. The problem with a hand like 55 is playability. The one crappy limper could have anything, as could the blinds (they're blinds, after all). Granted, you will have the best hand on the flop a lot of the time, but you will almost never know it. To get value out of the times when you DO have the best hand, you will have to make uncomfortable calls in a small pot. If you bet with the best hand, you are likely to be called in several places by overcards. The pot is small, and your risk of being outdrawn on most flops is high.

This being 2/4, your opponents are likely to call with any piece of the board (8 overcards, 3 undercards), so the value of outplaying in position and inducing a better hand to fold is limited.

All in all, this seems like a lot of situations I would like to avoid. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then avoid them. A player who plays well after the flop will make money in this situation, though.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you elaborate please? I was really hoping to trigger some kind of discussion.

I don't like this play at 2/4 for the following reasons:
At this limit, you are more likely than normal to get cold callers behind you. The value of buying the button is diminished with loose opponents behind you. Even if you do buy the button, the BB and limper are a favorite to call your raise preflop and continue calling if they make any reasonable sort of hand. Most all of these hands beat your unimproved pocket pair. In small stakes games, you usually need to show down the best hand to win.

In my opinion, this strategy would be more plausible at a higher limit table where opponents were more likely to respond to your tactical maneuverings postflop.


Assuming unknown, loose/passive opponents, what kinds of scenarios are you hoping to get into that don't involve flopping a set?

--donger

[/ QUOTE ]

Situations where passive opponents don't flop pairs.

scrub

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]

Situations where passive opponents don't flop pairs.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming your opponents don't share any cards, the chances of all 3 opponents collectively missing the flop (dodging 18 cards on the flop) are 4.1:1 against. This doesn't even take into account losing to overcards on the turn.

This is what you're hoping for?

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming your opponents don't share any cards, the chances of all 3 opponents collectively missing the flop (dodging 18 cards on the flop) are 4.1:1 against. This doesn't even take into account losing to overcards on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
First, you are assuming that all three board cards are overcards to our 55. Frequently, at least one card smaller than ours will flop. Second, as you say, you are assuming that they share no cards. Third, you are also assuming that all of the cards they hold are bigger than our pair. Admittedly, you are also being somewhat generous by ignoring the risk that one of them has a bigger pp. Still, the chance of us having the best hand on the flop when we don't flop a set should be quite a bit better than 4.1:1, and we will sometimes flop a set (or, less likely, a straight draw).

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Situations where passive opponents don't flop pairs.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming your opponents don't share any cards, the chances of all 3 opponents collectively missing the flop (dodging 18 cards on the flop) are 4.1:1 against. This doesn't even take into account losing to overcards on the turn.

This is what you're hoping for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I'm trying to explain this to you but you're not helping me that much.

You're obviously hoping to flop a set. Sometimes, though, you will not flop a set and still win the pot when you're in position, particularly when your opponents are passive. These situations are just another potential way to win when you limp here, adding to the hand's value.

scrub

[me454555]

n/m

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Situations where passive opponents don't flop pairs.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming your opponents don't share any cards, the chances of all 3 opponents collectively missing the flop (dodging 18 cards on the flop) are 4.1:1 against. This doesn't even take into account losing to overcards on the turn.

This is what you're hoping for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I'm trying to explain this to you but you're not helping me that much.

You're obviously hoping to flop a set. Sometimes, though, you will not flop a set and still win the pot when you're in position, particularly when your opponents are passive. These situations are just another potential way to win when you limp here, adding to the hand's value.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear you, and that makes sense. The main argument I was trying to make is that when you miss the flop, it's not such a cakewalk; most of the times you DO have the best hand, you won't know it.

--donger

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: fold preflop

[/ QUOTE ]

Buh?

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Situations where passive opponents don't flop pairs.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming your opponents don't share any cards, the chances of all 3 opponents collectively missing the flop (dodging 18 cards on the flop) are 4.1:1 against. This doesn't even take into account losing to overcards on the turn.

This is what you're hoping for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I'm trying to explain this to you but you're not helping me that much.

You're obviously hoping to flop a set. Sometimes, though, you will not flop a set and still win the pot when you're in position, particularly when your opponents are passive. These situations are just another potential way to win when you limp here, adding to the hand's value.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear you, and that makes sense. The main argument I was trying to make is that when you miss the flop, it's not such a cakewalk; most of the times you DO have the best hand, you won't know it.

--donger

[/ QUOTE ]

The more experience you get, the better you'll become at playing in marginal situations like when your 55 is the best hand. It's like flopping a mediocre pair out of the blinds or playing a mediocre hand when you get 3-bet with it--less fun than playing the flopped nuts, but more important to know how to do.

scrub

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: fold preflop

[/ QUOTE ]

Buh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, you should be paying for his lessons.../images/graemlins/smile.gif

scrub

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
There's an old thread in the archives somewhere where Clark and Dynasty give great arguments for raising ATs UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evan, I can't find it. Is there a way to search for threads that contain 2 user names?

I'm very curious, too. It seems that on the one hand, limping is good in a passive game where expect lots of limpers, for the same reasons you limp with A6s -- you are trying for a flush.

On the other hand, if you're playing for high card value, you went fewer oppos, which suggests a raise. But it seems that in the high card case, you are very likely to get called by hands that dominate you, and fold out hand that you dominate.

I'd like to read more...

Thanks,
gm

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's an old thread in the archives somewhere where Clark and Dynasty give great arguments for raising ATs UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
You can use google or some other search engine rather than the search built in totwoplustwo. I tried that, but still didn't find the thread.

[sthief09]

this thread has gotten way too long to read, so I'll throw in my 2 cents since I'm trying to put off doing hw

Hand 1: I would have raised the river. I don't put him on AQ just yet. all he's done is check raise the turn. I'm putting him on AK or AJ
Hand 2: easy, easy raise preflop. turn check-3bet looks a little overboard but you have a great nut redraw, so we'll take it. MP1 was probably drawing dead though.
Hand 3: I think the limp is probably ok in a loose-passive game. I wouldn't raise there in 2/4, and I don't really like folding it. with tight blinds, I'd raise it
Hand 4: I'd fold preflop, but I doubt that's the problem as I get the feeling most would play it. I'd play 87s and probably even raise it. 76s might be a limp. I think 65s without the button and only a pair of limpers is a little loose. the flop fold looks good.
Hand 5: I can't see where this was misplayed
Hand 6: tough spot. I like the preflop 3-bet for value even though you're 3rd in. I think you're probably dead here on the turn. you have no outs, getting 5-1 on the call down. his flop play suggests an overpair, or at least overs with a big diamond on the flop. you don't really beat anything.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]


poker lessons: www.ericlindauer.com/poker.html (http://www.ericlindauer.com/poker.html)

[/ QUOTE ]


do your lessons include cold-calling with KQo? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
easy, check/call the flop and turn. possibly lead the river, player dependant.

you will make much more here over the long run by risking a free ace in return for inducing bluffs and minimizing losses when behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this a lot better than check-raising the flop

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1- I would limp preflop. James may kick my ass for saying that later but I don't see a great reason to raise. I also think that there's a pretty good case for raising the river.

Hand 2- Easy preflop raise. I'm definitly leaning towards leading the turn and check-3 betting seems a little out of line to me.

Hand 3- Raise preflop.

Hand 4- I would fold preflop (call if I was ont he button) and call the first flop bet.

Hand 5- The preflop completion is debatable but I think but you played the hand fine.

Hand 6- I would check-fold the turn. I don't see any reasonable hand that you beat anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

for 1, you are a vagina

for 3, I think you're a little too much in shorthanded mode. at 2/4 how often are you going to get it headsup and/or steal the button.

for 4, with a backdoor flush draw, I could see a call, but you have a really crappy holding here. you basically have the equivalent of bottom pair, no kicker (as well as no 2 pair kicker), and a gut shot (we'll call it a 2 card gut shot since you technically have an OESD). that's not enough to call getting 7-1 not closing the action

for 5, K9o is not debateable with a 1/2 blind structure. it's an easy complete

[sthief09]

you really ought to get in the habit of raising suited broadway cards. it's just a much more profitable way to play them. I know this isn't the most compelling reason, but it's just a good way to play. you should limit your limping to a minimum. leave it for suited connectors and small pairs in LP. big cards are meant to be raised.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without a read on the blinds as tight I will assume that I'm not often getting it HU by raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

word, but you're still in position with a good hand anyways. it wouldnt' surprise me if the raise was +EV on equity alone in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah, and I'd think this is the kind of raise Evan would learn to love at 10/20 6-max.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the limper's stats are kind of relevant here.

Also, I think raising the river is much more important which is why I didn't go into the preflop play for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]


the limper's stats are by no stretch of the imagination, irrelavent. you should be isolating weak limpers often. if he was a TAG who probably has AJ or 77, it becomes a fold.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
you really ought to get in the habit of raising suited broadway cards. it's just a much more profitable way to play them. I know this isn't the most compelling reason, but it's just a good way to play. you should limit your limping to a minimum. leave it for suited connectors and small pairs in LP. big cards are meant to be raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Josh,

I'll take your advice and start playing them that way, though I'd still like to understand the deeper reasons for it.

How about QTs and QJs? Raise those too?

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you really ought to get in the habit of raising suited broadway cards. it's just a much more profitable way to play them. I know this isn't the most compelling reason, but it's just a good way to play. you should limit your limping to a minimum. leave it for suited connectors and small pairs in LP. big cards are meant to be raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Josh,

I'll take your advice and start playing them that way, though I'd still like to understand the deeper reasons for it.

How about QTs and QJs? Raise those too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like QTs much without good position. I don't raise with it much. I almost always raise with QJs and KTs. I always raise with ATs and KJs. in EP I'll limp QJs and KTs. at 15/30 I've started raising those UTG since just about every pot is raised anyway and I hate being out of position against someone who just isolated me. in a saner game those games are solid limps UTG. I guess I treat QTs more or less like JTs. I'd give it a shot but if I were you I'd just take this as a suggestion. by no means do you have to play that way, but I think you'll find it profitable.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
hand 1:
i think i just call the turn check-raise after a total blank comes. that seems like an odd line for AK..

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it's a line that's most characteristic of just a strong hand. in a blind steal situation, AK or AJ are very strong hands here. AQ could certainly do this, as could a set, but I think you'll see AK or AJ here plenty. maybe I'm thinkign too much in terms of aggro games though. at 2/4 it's possible most players wouldn't appreciate how strong these hands are.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the rfact that we beat a random hand is not rationale for raising the river. Basic hand reading will tell you that you should raise.

Don't do it. I don't care. Ridiculous posts like these are why I confine most of my strategy discussion to AIM. Its a shame.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you're overstating your fact here, Evan. I agree with you, but bear in mind we're discussing a 2/4 hand. the majority of posters here play 2/4 and 3/6, which doesn't have the ridiculous aggression and fierce blind defense that we see all the time at 10/20 6-max and 15/30. we come to expect to get check raised with AK, AJ, and even AT. citing reasons like "basic hand reading" aren't rationale for raising. he's making a lot of valid points here, and I don't think you're being fair. and just trying to give you a hard time isn't 100% of the reason I'm writing this.

- Josh, standing up for the litte guy since Feb '05

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]

There are 15 possile hands that beat us while there are 1978 hands that we beat. Insisting on passing up river raises in spots like this is your option but its just clearly wrong.

I don't understand river play though. Neither does James.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're using the fact that we know what James thinks to overstate your case. you're talking as if you're an infallable poker god who is not to be questioned, yet not once did you actually post some numbers. here are some numbers:

AA- 3 combinations
QQ- 3 combinations
66- 3 combinations
AQ- 6 combinations

AK- 8 combinations
AJ- 8 combinations
AcTc- 1 combination
Ac9c- 1 combination
Ac8c- 1 combination
A3- 1 combination

note that if he's bluffing we gain nothing

behind: 15 combinations
ahead: 20 combinations

ahead 20/35 = 56%, which would be on the fence for whether or not to raise. throw in the fact that his strange smooth call, bet out looks a lot like AK not wanting to believe he's beat makes it a raise for me. it's far from simple though

[James282]

You are underestimating how often people will bet Ax and Qx here. This guy wasn't a top cash game pro, he was a 2/4 player.
-James

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, but bear in mind we're discussing a 2/4 hand. the majority of posters here play 2/4 and 3/6, which doesn't have the ridiculous aggression and fierce blind defense that we see all the time at 10/20 6-max and 15/30.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I mainly play 20/40, but I don't play online at all where the opponents are apparently more aggressive. I can't remember the last time someone bet into me on the river when a blank hit after I had three-bet him on the turn. In the games I play, a stop-and-go like this nearly 100% of the time indicates a monster trying to get excessive action or a bluff, and in either case I have nothing to gain from raising. I have never seen someone bet in a spot like this with a hand like AX or QX, and given the preflop play, the only of those that even seems reasonable for him to hold is AK. If people in the online low limit games play differently and would often bet this river with goofy hands, I can accept being told that, but my objection was that his style of reasoning was deeply flawed. I'm glad that he will go back to only discussing his ideas on AIM with his friends who will apparently just agree with him rather than pointing out when he makes grave logical errors, espcially if his response to criticism of erors in his thinking is to call it "retarded".

[James282]

I'd like to also note that some of the decisions in these hands were not "mistakes," but instead lines that I thought we debatable at the time. That's an important distinction to draw, IMO.
-James

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
You are underestimating how often people will bet Ax and Qx here. This guy wasn't a top cash game pro, he was a 2/4 player.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, but how often is he check raising the turn with KQ? it's a hand with showdown value, but is no monster. players with mediocre hands like this, at any level, will tend to call more with their mediocre hands, and raise with their weak ones (draws, bottom pairs, etc) and their good ones (AK, AQ, QQ, AJ here). it would take a LAG to check raise with a mediocre hand, because he'd have to actually believe that it's good.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]

yeah, but how often is he check raising the turn with KQ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is three-betting KQ from the SB preflop really that common in these games? I was assuming not. If it were against a steal raise, then sure, but we were raising an EP limper. For me part of "basic handreading" is considering all streets, but I guess I'm just old-fashioned.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How often we are good is irrelevent.

[/ QUOTE ]
When you write that as the first line in a post concerning a river raise I can only think that you don't want me to read the rest. Seriously that is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

nah, he's right though. the actual % of the time you're good has little relevance. the question is "how often are we ahead against the range of hands that won't fold to a raise"

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

yeah, but how often is he check raising the turn with KQ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is three-betting KQ from the SB preflop really that common in these games? I was assuming not. If it were against a steal raise, then sure, but we were raising an EP limper. For me part of "basic handreading" is considering all streets, but I guess I'm just old-fashioned.

[/ QUOTE ]


I figured it was. maybe not, but the turn check-raise certainly isn't. that would be one of those raises where no worse hand calls but no better hand folds

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How often we are good is irrelevent.

[/ QUOTE ]
When you write that as the first line in a post concerning a river raise I can only think that you don't want me to read the rest. Seriously that is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

nah, he's right though. the actual % of the time you're good has little relevance. the question is "how often are we ahead against the range of hands that won't fold to a raise"

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you. I think the reason this subthread turned ugly is that I find it hard to respect someone who refers to basic poker theory as "retarded". I understand that this a forum for low limit players and there will be a gaps in people's knowledge of the game, but there is no reason to be a jerk about it. If you don't understand why something is true, it's better for everyone if you ask politely rather than attacking people and calling names.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

yeah, but how often is he check raising the turn with KQ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is three-betting KQ from the SB preflop really that common in these games? ...

[/ QUOTE ]
I figured it was.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about with A2 which was the hand he had said we were hoping to beat on the river other than a complete bluff? The reason I thought he was way off is that for me "basic handreading" indicates that A2 is very unlikely to have played the hand this way, but I don't know people do in low limit games on the internet. Certainly in my local 20/40 game I've never seen A2 played this way.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

yeah, but how often is he check raising the turn with KQ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is three-betting KQ from the SB preflop really that common in these games? ...

[/ QUOTE ]
I figured it was.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about with A2 which was the hand he had said we were hoping to beat on the river other than a complete bluff? The reason I thought he was way off is that for me "basic handreading" indicates that A2 is very unlikely to have played the hand this way, but I don't know people do in low limit games on the internet. Certainly in my local 20/40 game I've never seen A2 played this way.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah I'd expect to see A2 about never. first of all he'd have to 3-bet preflop, which I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see. people love A's shorthanded. then he'd have to have the audacity to check-raise the turn with an A with no kicker. I don't see that happening much. same goes for A4-A7

[runa]

I just wanted to thank you for posting this thread and sharing the knowledge that you paid exclusively to gain, and then stimulating some very interesting discussion. I was seriously considering taking James up on his offer, and if he's not too swamped by offers at this point I might still go for it. I think I learned alot from some good solid points that I never would have considered in seemingly mundane or not so close decisions. Props!

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the limper's stats are kind of relevant here.

Also, I think raising the river is much more important which is why I didn't go into the preflop play for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]


the limper's stats are by no stretch of the imagination, irrelavent. you should be isolating weak limpers often. if he was a TAG who probably has AJ or 77, it becomes a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the limper's stats are kind of relevant here.

Also, I think raising the river is much more important which is why I didn't go into the preflop play for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]


the limper's stats are by no stretch of the imagination, irrelavent. you should be isolating weak limpers often. if he was a TAG who probably has AJ or 77, it becomes a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


whoa, I guess I got a little too comfortable disagreeing with you. sorry

[krishanleong]

Agreed, but alternative lines doesn't make for a sexy headline. Nothing is every always wrong or always right. People shouldn't try and mimic the plays that were made in this thread. You have to understand the concepts behind each play and learn to apply them properly. Take hand 6 for example. Hypothetically speaking, maybe folding the turn was the right play but James wanted to teach me to call down more on 4-flush boards. (I don't think folding is the right play) It's the presentation of an alternative line and it's merits that are valuable. It's not about fixing mistakes. It's about becoming a better more knowledgable player.

Krishan

[krishanleong]

FWIW, in hand 1 villian had AK and MHIG. One thing not mentioned in the thread was how strange the line villian took was. CR the turn, calling a 3-bet and then leading the river is not a good line. It's a line used by bad player or frustrated players when they don't want to believe they are beat. At least at 2/4 that's what it means. At 2/4 people will bluff you with 8 high and call a raise just to see what you have.

Krishan

[krishanleong]

There have been a couple of people who have been saying the completion of K9o in the sb is loose. Sorry guys, this is completely standard. Yes it's not a part of sshe. It's also very easy and profitable. Your not dominated by many hands. The 9 makes top pair often enough. How can you justify completing here with QTo, JTo and not K9o? If you don't complete with good offsuit kings in the sb, you should think through how you think they will play and post your thoughts. You should come to the conclusion that they are playable.

Krishan

[Evan]

They can surely be played well enough to complete. I don't think most people play very well out of the blinds and I am sure that a lot of people on this board would benefit form playing tighter fromt he blinds. If you are doing okay with it than that's fine.


Also, why has this thread become the place for [censored] sounding posts? I've made a few but they were all in response to people doing that same to me. Why does everyone have to write in a condecending manner that just sounds stupid?

[sthief09]

deleted because I have no clue what I was talking about

[GuyOnTilt]

Good hands to post.

Hand 1 : Perfect till the river, where you have an easy, easy, easy raise.

Hand 2 : Raise PF.

Hand 3 : Hand 6 looks perfect to me, so I'm assuming James told you to raise PF here. I limp against most mixes. I raise occassionally if the players warrant it, but limping is my default play.

Hand 4 : Fold PF.

Hand 5 : Don't bet the flop. Check and call the flop, check and call the turn, and usually check and call the river, depending on what the turn and river cards were. Betting will be called for if middling cards that he could've paired but would check through show up. But yeah, your line on this one isn't good.

Hand 6 : Perfect.

GoT

[sthief09]

as far as I can tell, aside from the 55 preflop discrepency, you and James are on the same page here.

[krishanleong]

I do this sometimes. I agree it is a horrible leak. We should all try and present strategy with as little emotion as possible.

Krishan

[PokerBob]

Hand 1: Raise the river.

Hand 2: Bet the flop.

Hand 3: Fine.

Hand 4: Raise the flop.

Hand 5: I'm not sure, but I think you might want to muck PF.

Hand 6: Fold the turn.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
as far as I can tell, aside from the 55 preflop discrepency, you and James are on the same page here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't surprising, since they play a very similar style.

Plus, I don't get the sense that James characterized limping 55 as a "mistake".

scrub

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: fold preflop

[/ QUOTE ]

Buh?

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, I have a hard time responding intelligently to "Buh?", but I'll do my best. Here is my thinking: calling puts you in a difficult spot, as even if we put this guy as a poor, any ace player limping UTG, our crappy A6 is not a hand to excited about in a short-handed pot. We do have position, which is nice, but, calling, eh.

So, maybe raise? I like this better than calling since we're in late position and have a chance to get the pot somewhat shorthanded. Still, A6s? Is this that much better than A6 offsuit in a shorthanded pot? No. Would you raise with A6 offsuit here? No. I don't think it's there.

I don't think this is a big mistake, but I think it's a mistake. Now, this logic may not compete with "buh", but there it is. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Good luck.
Eric

[DeeJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buh ??? /images/graemlins/grin.gif