My First NL Hand: Good Ol' Pocket Jacks

[bobbyi]

Howdy all. I am a long time (well, relatively) limit holdem player, currently playing mainly b&m 20/40. I have decided to augment my live play with some online gaming, and I have decided that as long as I'm playing online, I'll also try to pick up some new games like NLHE and PLO. I have very little experience with NL, so I'm starting with the $25 tables on Party and hoping to work my way up (I'm thinking that the smaller-stacked games on Party are better for now as I would perfer something simpler while I'm learning the game, and maybe I'll try a site with 100 BB stacks once I have some more experience). I played my first session this morning and I hope you will help me by giving some comments on the following hand. It is a very basic straight-forward hand, but I want to do a check-up that my thinking in this sort of situation is solid.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $.50 BB (9 handed)

saw flop|<font color="#C00000">saw showdown</font>

<font color="#C00000">Button ($18.25)</font>
<font color="#C00000">Hero ($34.85)</font>
BB ($25.9)
UTG ($36.45)
UTG+1 ($21)
MP1 ($27.35)
MP2 ($31.5)
MP3 ($12.3)
<font color="#C00000">CO ($139.37)</font>

Preflop: Hero is SB with J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, J/images/graemlins/heart.gif. Hero posts a blind of $0.25.
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, MP1 calls $0.50, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Button calls $0.50, Hero (SB) completes, BB checks.

Thoughts: My call here is standard, right? As a limit HE player, it feels a bit weak to just call with jacks, but I figure that queens is the smallest pair I should be raising against limpers from the blinds in NL. Yes? Also raise AK? And nothing else?

Flop: ($2) 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $2</font>, BB folds, MP1 calls $2, Button calls $2.

Thoughts: Betting pot seems routine here. I didn't want to check-raise because with my smallish overpair, giving a free card is very dangrous and I can't trust the players in this game to bet if I check. They call with lots of horrendous stuff, even for a pot-sized bet, so this seemed like the natural action.

Turn: ($8) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $9</font>, MP1 folds, Button calls $9.

Thoughts: Note that $9 is somewhat of an overbet here (taking into account the rake, the pot is less than the $8 that the converter is indicating). No good? I think this was the only time I overbet the pot during the session. If the button calls, I leave him with only $7 which makes the river play easy, although MP1 is still in here too. These players are so loose that I really wanted to charge them a premium to try to draw out now that the board is getting more coordinated. Note that I got called anyway (and by a worse hand, and is it turns out), so that makes me feel like this was a reasonable bet, but obviously that is just going from a sample size of one.

River: ($26) Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $20</font>, Button calls $6.75 (All-In).

Thoughts: Not a friendly river card. But we're heads up and he's got less than $7 left and there is about $40 in the pot, so I can't fold if I check and he bets. I thought that if I checked he would probably only bet if I was beat (obviously I can't be 100% sure of that or I would be able to fold to a bet), but if I bet he would call with pretty much anything for 7 more bucks. If he had been calling me down with a crappy pair (maybe 89?), he would call the bet, but would take a free showdown if I checked, so it seemed better to put the money in myself. Yes?

Again, sorry that this hand is somewhat basic, but I would imaigne that top pair/ good kicker and overpair hands are going to be the bread and butter of a game with such short stacks, so I was hoping for a check-up here. All comments would be very much appreciated. The actual results are that he had TQ and hit two pair on the river, which makes me feel like this was the right way to play it, because if he doesn't hit his five-outer on the river, he's certainly calling and I get his whole stack.

[joewatch]

Sorry about losing your first NL hand. I would suggest raising with JJ in the blinds if you are limped to since you would prefer to win the hand preflop if possible while you still have the best hand, or take it heads-up. The reason is that you are very likely to flop at least 1 of the 3 overcards, and then you will have to check-fold.

The rest of the hand you played fine, except for the river. Don't bother betting more than your opponent's stack. You will lose a lot of extra money to the rake in the long run.

[kurto]

"My call here is standard, right?" No. You should raise with Jacks. Unless everyone is superloose, you'll get out a lot of hands like K6 and A2 who might limp but fold to a raise. Furthermore, you have a great starting hand, you want to charge them. A standard raise here would be 3-4xBB +1bx(#of limpers)... $2.50-$3

"but I figure that queens is the smallest pair I should be raising against limpers from the blinds in NL." Some raise 10s-up. Many will raise even smaller. Some would advocate raising With AQ... and depending on how tight your opponents are, you may raise with less. (the tighter they are, the more inclined you are to raise and vice versa...)

"Betting pot seems routine here." Yes. (people advocate anywhere from 2/3-pot) Some may advocate overbetting the pot to shut down the potential flush and straight draws.

"Note that $9 is somewhat of an overbet here" Its a reasonable bet as long as you're ahead. One thought... its an unraised pot... Many advocate don't go broke in an unraised pot. Since you didn't raise preflop, people can have any 2 cards. But I'd think you're good here.

"I thought that if I checked he would probably only bet if I was beat" Not necessarily. People will bet if they think you were on a draw that didn't make it.

Regarding the riverbet - It really helps to know your opponents. Would your opponents be calling with just TP? Would they call bets with 2 overcards (like AQ... in which case, would they raised it?)

In your case, had you raised preflop it likely would have played out differently.

You raise... the 10-Q may fold preflop. If not.
On the Flop, you bet the pot (which is now more substantial), the 10-Q more then likely has to fold.

[jdaddy]

Be prepared to have jacks cracked in $25 and $50 Party game. Calling stations abound.
Agree with joe on the preflop raise. I'd make it 3 bucks to go and narrow the field.
I have to admit with approximately 25,000 hands of small stake NL on Party skins, I had no idea they raked anything above the callers stack, ie the difference between the $20 bet and is $6 call. FYI, you can always hit the button on the slider and type in the villans exact amount of stack. First that would avoid the extra rake that Joe is mentioning, secondly it seems to have a little mind game factor .. . . "i want every cent of your stack". /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kurto]

btw... you should rest assured that your opponent was an idiot. You have to expect that a lot. But you can often reduce the 'idiot flop calls' with the preflop raise.

[bort411]

I agree that this is a clear preflop raise. Out of position with 3 others in the hand there are few safe flops unless you hit your 3rd jack. A lot of people will limp with 45, 67, 8 10, and q10, not to mention 44, 55, and 88. $4 or $5 is a good amount to raise here.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry about losing your first NL hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
To clarify, the title meant that it is the first hand I'm posting. This was my first session, but this wasn't my first hand at the table (there's no way to come in on the SB), and the session went quite fine (I was down and bit and decided it was my last round because I needed to leave for work; when I was UTG (so, my last hand), I got KK and doubled through. Sweet. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif).

[ QUOTE ]
I would suggest raising with JJ in the blinds if you are limped to since you would prefer to win the hand preflop if possible while you still have the best hand, or take it heads-up. The reason is that you are very likely to flop at least 1 of the 3 overcards, and then you will have to check-fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that I would be happy to take the pot down right now. At the time, I didn't realize how likely this was. I was surprised throughout the session by how frequently a pot-sized raise behind limpers would take down the pot. I would expect that people in a game of this size would be loose enough that you would usually get at least one caller, but it appears that you are right and a raise will often win the pot right here. But the comment about overcards often coming is exactly why I didn't raise. Playing this hand out of position heads up when an overcard flops will be very difficult. I thought it made more sense to keep the pot multiway and hope for a favorable flop (set or overpair). Essentially, since I'm out of position, I thought that jacks should be treated the same way I would treat, say, 77. Apparently not. Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't bother betting more than your opponent's stack. You will lose a lot of extra money to the rake in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whoah! That's very useful information. I had no idea that they were going to rake the extra money over what he could call. But you're right that they did create a side pot just for me after I bet, which I didn't expect. Thanks for pointing this out. Is it reasonable to sometimes bet more than your opponents stack size when bluffing to create the impression that I like my hand (in case he thinks that I haven't noticed how short-stacked he is and really want to be that much)? In that case I may increase my bluffing equity, but I risk having my more astute opponents figure out that whenever I do that I'm on a bluff, so I guess it is a bad idea.

[kurto]

" But the comment about overcards often coming is exactly why I didn't raise. Playing this hand out of position heads up when an overcard flops will be very difficult." You can't let that stop you. You need to think, (1) You may win the flop preflop. (2) You're knocking out a lot of hands that might fold that might have beat you had they stayed in.--

Imagine this--
You- Jacks
A- K-2suited
B- A-7os
C- 10-Q

If all of those people can limp in (and with loose players, they might limp with all of the above)... you are dead to every single overcard. But none of those hands should play for a decent raise (some will... but most would fold those)

Let's say you raise and only the 10-Q calls (cause we already know he's not that good)... You have reduced the overcards that beat you from QKA (9 cards) to just Qs (3 cards).

Also... this is a little general... but just because an overcard flops doesn't mean you give it up. Remember, you raised... your opponents are just as likely to give you credit for having AK or AQ as they are pocket jacks. If you raise and you only have one or 2 callers... and the board flops 3-8-K... I'm still taking a stab at it with my jacks. If they don't have an ace (and they're not complete idiots) you're still going to take the pot down with the bet unless they have a king. If there were 5 callers... I might check. But the less callers there are, the more likely you still have the best hand.

[bobbyi]

I'm still not completely convinced especially since you don't seem to be taking into account the fact that I'm out of position for the rest of the hand, which I think is the most important consideration. But about this:

[ QUOTE ]
If you raise and you only have one or 2 callers... and the board flops 3-8-K... I'm still taking a stab at it with my jacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you clarify "stab"? Is half-pot going to be enough to take it down? Or is that going to look suspicious? The reason I was uncomfortable raising is that I don't know how to procede from there, so any help on this is appreciated. I'm finding this thread very informative and though-provoking. Thanks.

[tbach24]

Very nicely played IMO, except for a few tricky things.

You want to raise JJ if you are in the blinds to try and clear out the field. Playing JJ is tricky headsup out of position, but even harder in a multi-way field.

The flop bet is good. You want to charge any straight or flush draws.

I rarely like overbetting the pot, and this situation is no exception. You mentioned that 8 was the pot, so I might bet out 6-8. Probably 8 because it's a 3-way field and if the first guy calls, the second guy will probably too.

I don't think the river card should really scare you except for the fact that if he was on a flush draw, he could've had overs as well and this could've been one of them.

A move that I like to do (it might not work on the passive Party games) is to check it to them when an obvious draw misses, and let them bluff. However, since he only has 7 left, I think putting him in here is fine though.

Well played.

Was it Q /images/graemlins/spade.gifT /images/graemlins/spade.gif or was this guy just a total fish?

[kurto]

"I'm still not completely convinced especially since you don't seem to be taking into account the fact that I'm out of position for the rest of the hand" I agree your position sucks. But your position is proportionally worse the more players there are in the hand. Being out of position with 1 caller is really different then 4 callers.

Part of the reason to raise is to reduce the number of people you play against. A pocket pair decreases in value with each caller.

There are times I limp with a decent hand upfront. Let's say I have AK, there are 5 limpers who I don't think are going to fold to a raise... I may limp because an AK almost always needs improvement.

Pocket jacks on the other hand, can often win unimproved... and the less players in the hand, the better the chances are that that will happen.

BTW- You will read many stories about people limping with pocket Aces from the SB. The BB gets a free look at the flop with 10-5 for free and flops 2 pair. He then wins a nice pot that he wouldn't have been in had the aces raised.

You will often raise with hands and be forced to lay them down on the flop. But that doesn't mean that raising them wasn't the best strategy.

"Can you clarify "stab"? Is half-pot going to be enough to take it down?" I usually bet 2/3 to the pot. If you get called or raised... you're done with it. But you will generally take the pot down enough times to more then compensate for the times you bet with the worst hand.

Position is a major part of NL. But so is the betting. If you check, when an overcard falls, you're telling them you don't a king. Then, whether or not they have a King, they bet the pot. Then what do you do? They've forced you into a decision. By betting, you put the decision on them.

Let me give you an example (which illustrates betting AND position). Someone raised preflop. I called with pocket 6s playing for set value mostly.

The flop comes A-x-x. He checks to me. I know safely put him on a pocket pair... and I guarantee you one better then mine. But he checked to me. He doesn't have an ace. So I bet. He folds. He complains, "evertime I play Queens, an ace comes." Had he bet... I would have folded. Simple as that.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Was it Q /images/graemlins/spade.gifT /images/graemlins/spade.gif or was this guy just a total fish?

[/ QUOTE ]
Fish. I guess my reaction should have been disappointment about losing the pot, but instead it was "Wow, I'm going to like this $25 NL."

[perfectm]

[ QUOTE ]
btw... you should rest assured that your opponent was an idiot. You have to expect that a lot. But you can often reduce the 'idiot flop calls' with the preflop raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I definitely agree that you MUST pre-flop raise in the blinds with JJ, his opponent shouldn't be too heavily criticized. He limped in with Q10. The flop came down rags, and the bet was only $2 to call with 2 over cards. When the turn came he had top pair, decent kicker. So he called the $9. Then he hit a second pair on the river for top two.

The worst logic of this entire hand is not pre-flop raising with Jacks.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
The flop came down rags, and the bet was only $2 to call with 2 over cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
His flop call is horrendous. He called a pot sized bet with bad overcards on a two-tone board. There's little chance his queen high is currently ahead. He has six outs at best and very frequently has less. He has two opponents in a baby stakes game where people tend to be too loose, so he is going to have trouble picking up this pot later. Once he turns top pair, I'm not expecting him to fold, but his flop play is atrocious.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree your position sucks. But your position is proportionally worse the more players there are in the hand. Being out of position with 1 caller is really different then 4 callers.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is flatly wrong. The value of position goes down, not up, as the pot gets more multiway. That's basic poker theory. I may agree that this specific hand may have needed to be raised and that it may play better against a different-sized field, but in the general case, your statement about position is incorrect.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw... you should rest assured that your opponent was an idiot. You have to expect that a lot. But you can often reduce the 'idiot flop calls' with the preflop raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I definitely agree that you MUST pre-flop raise in the blinds with JJ, his opponent shouldn't be too heavily criticized. He limped in with Q10. The flop came down rags, and the bet was only $2 to call with 2 over cards. When the turn came he had top pair, decent kicker. So he called the $9. Then he hit a second pair on the river for top two.

The worst logic of this entire hand is not pre-flop raising with Jacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I wanted to help OP, but instead I'm just going to have to point out how very wrong this post is. (Hopefully that will help him, too.)

[ QUOTE ]
He limped in with Q10.

[/ QUOTE ]Offsuit, this is a bad preflop limp.
[ QUOTE ]
The flop came down rags, and the bet was only $2 to call with 2 over cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not the size of the bet that matters, it's the size of the bet in relation to the pot. He was getting 2:1 odds to hit an overcard (which is a 6:1 draw) and his overcards might not even be good if he is against a set or two pair. Terrible call.
[ QUOTE ]
When the turn came he had top pair, decent kicker. So he called the $9.

[/ QUOTE ]He never should have been here in the first place, but I still think he has to believe he is behind. People here don't often fire two barrels when they weren't the preflop raiser without being able to beat top pair.
[ QUOTE ]
Then he hit a second pair on the river for top two.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, he sucked out on the river. Congratulations. He's still a fish, and his play was still horrible.
[ QUOTE ]

The worst logic of this entire hand is not pre-flop raising with Jacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there are two or so more limpers, I think not raising JJ is good. Because there were only a few limpers, I agree that not raising JJ is a mistake, but only a small mistake because you will be out of position. The bigger mistake OP made, in my opinion, is playing an overpair so fast in an unraised pot. But against these clowns on Party, especially once they flat call on the flop, I think he is almost certainly ahead on the turn and should be charging their draws on that draw-heavy board at that point, so his play is fine. He should adjust his thinking from high stakes limit, though, in the sense that people at low stakes no limit are very passive in general so it would not be at all unusual for someone to just call down with two pair, or possibly even a set, here and that in no limit he can lose his whole stack by playing so fast with just one pair as opposed to at limit where it is just a BB or two and when he is behind he can expect his opponents to let him know.

[kurto]

"While I definitely agree that you MUST pre-flop raise in the blinds with JJ, his opponent shouldn't be too heavily criticized. He limped in with Q10. The flop came down rags, and the bet was only $2 to call with 2 over cards."

I don't agree. On the board is already 2 to a flush draw, a potential made straight, possibly 2 pair and/or a possible set. He's drawing to 6 outs... and if the flush draw is out there, possibly 4 outs (we don't know his suits). Even if he hits one of his outs, he could still run into kicker trouble. He's got no draws.

He's definitely behind now 99% of people who will bet this pot. And at most 10% of the cards in the deck (if he's not already drawing dead) MIGHT help him... and for that he's matching the pot?

Furthermore... on the turn, if the raiser isn't an idiot, his bet says, "I'm not afraid of the 10"... at this point, he would also have to consider that his 10s are no good. (and if fact, they aren't) So, if he could come to this conclusion, he's drawing for another 10 (2 outs) and a queen (3 outs).

He hit runner runner (which is probably like a 1000-1 draw) to double his money.

I think he's clearly an idiot.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your position is proportionally worse the more players there are in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is flatly wrong. The value of position goes down, not up, as the pot gets more multiway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who sees you two agreeing?

[jai]

[ QUOTE ]
Thoughts: My call here is standard, right? As a limit HE player, it feels a bit weak to just call with jacks, but I figure that queens is the smallest pair I should be raising against limpers from the blinds in NL. Yes? Also raise AK? And nothing else?

[/ QUOTE ]

This may not be important for these stakes, but if your opponents can generally put you on a narrow range of hands based on your betting, then you will get destroyed by the better players. So in a tougher game, you should mix it up. Here you can probably raise for value.

[kurto]

"This is flatly wrong. The value of position goes down, not up, as the pot gets more multiway." How can you argue that its worse to act 1st into a single player then 1st into a field of 5 players?

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your position is proportionally worse the more players there are in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is flatly wrong. The value of position goes down, not up, as the pot gets more multiway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who sees you two agreeing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. He says that position is more important in a five-handed field than it is heads up. I say that it is the opposite.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you argue that its worse to act 1st into a single player then 1st into a field of 5 players?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because this is true and is basic poker theory. It also should be clear from experience that being out of position heads up absoultely sucks. That's the worst possible situation to be in. Having a large field, where you can check to the field and see how they act, is not so bad, although obviously still not idea.

If you haven't read it, I recommend Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker". The chapter on position has a good discussion of where position is more important and where it is less so, including the idea that as the pot gets more multiway, position is less significant.

[maranello11]

If you play 20/40 move up to 100 NL and PL you will drive yourself nuts playing those low NL games. There are to many players who do not care about their money, in those games.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
He hit runner runner (which is probably like a 1000-1 draw) to double his money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perfect-perfect is in the ballpark of 1000-1. This situation is an order of magnitude better since he had six outs that he needed to hit twice. He has about an eight of the deck working for him, so he is going to hit the turn about 1/8 of the time and hit the river about another 1/8 or 1/9 of the time (he only has five extant good cards then), so he is quite a bit better than 100-1, let alone 1000-1. This is assuming that hitting two of his cards always wins for him, which may not be true depending on what BB had; if he was on a flush draw, obviously things are worse for him. Regardless, his call on the flop was clearly awful.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
If you play 20/40 move up to 100 NL and PL you will drive yourself nuts playing those low NL games. There are to many players who do not care about their money, in those games.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'd be amazed how many people in my local 20/40 don't care about their money either.

[kurto]

"It also should be clear from experience that being out of position heads up absoultely sucks." I would still rathar be oop heads up then into a full field. Which is why you play less hands in EP then later position.

I'm still inclined to believe you and are saying the same thing and having different ways to say it.

Essentially... you are out of position, which sucks. But for your specific hand, your lack of position is overshadowed (I would argue) by the number of competitors you have. Being out of position AND having more players compounds the problem with your jacks.

[iceman5]

Without calling Party Poker and asking them, I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that the "side pot" that he created by betting more than the opponents stack is returned to him unraked .

[jhall23]

I am pretty sure of that too.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
But for your specific hand, your lack of position is overshadowed (I would argue) by the number of competitors you have. Being out of position AND having more players compounds the problem with your jacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm willing to believe this. I disagreed with the statement that I should raise because having a smaller field neutralizes the disadvantage of being out of position in the general case. However, you might be right that a valid reason to raise is that JJ is a hand that plays better against one opponent than against three (regardless of position). In fact, conventional wisdom about JJ (in limit, at least) is that it perfers to be heads up or to have a large field and plays worst against exactly three opponents, which is the situation I was creating by not raising.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Without calling Party Poker and asking them, I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that the "side pot" that he created by betting more than the opponents stack is returned to him unraked .

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I had assumed. If I bet the river and no one calls, my uncalled bet isn't raked right? I hope not, although it's possible. I think this is the same situation. Everything about what was in my opponent's stack was an uncalled bet. But I'm new to online poker and don't know for sure.

[TheWorstPlayer]

I also think that it is unraked. Where it DOES factor for sure is in the "Average Pot" figure displayed in the lobby. So you should just realise that if there is a table with a maniac who bets $100 into a $1 pot, the average pot size at that table will be $100. This can make that figure very misleading.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
So you should just realise that if there is a table with a maniac who bets $100 into a $1 pot

[/ QUOTE ]
I want to sit at that table /images/graemlins/cool.gif.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Search for a thread from a few months ago posted, I believe, by Sponger called something like "For Wayfare" /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[tbach24]

He was actually only 14-to-1 twice over to hit a better hand than you. He only needed the Q. Right??

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
He was actually only 14-to-1 twice over to hit a better hand than you. He only needed the Q. Right??

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. The claim was the he if he was dead to runner-runner that would be a 1000-1 to one shot and I was pointing out that that is only true when you are dead to perfect-perfect. But you're right that in the actual situation he didn't need runner-runner since he had three real outs (depending on what BB had).

[bobbyi]

Good post. A few comments:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The flop came down rags, and the bet was only $2 to call with 2 over cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not the size of the bet that matters, it's the size of the bet in relation to the pot. He was getting 2:1 odds to hit an overcard (which is a 6:1 draw) and his overcards might not even be good if he is against a set or two pair. Terrible call.

[/ QUOTE ]
He's actually getting 3:1 here because there was a caller. It doesn't change the fact that his call is awful, but I just figured I'd point it out. I agree with what you say especially because there are lots of situation where he has less than 6 outs even when he isn't against two pair or a set given that his overcards aren't very good and there is a two-flush on board which he has no part of (I'm at work and don't have the hh, so maybe one of his cards was a spade, but that's not how I remember it).

[ QUOTE ]
The bigger mistake OP made, in my opinion, is playing an overpair so fast in an unraised pot. But against these clowns on Party, especially once they flat call on the flop, I think he is almost certainly ahead on the turn and should be charging their draws on that draw-heavy board at that point, so his play is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm confused as to why you say that playing this fast was a mistake and then say that my play was fine.

[ QUOTE ]
He should adjust his thinking from high stakes limit, though, in the sense that people at low stakes no limit are very passive in general so it would not be at all unusual for someone to just call down with two pair, or possibly even a set, here and that in no limit he can lose his whole stack by playing so fast with just one pair

[/ QUOTE ]
I do understand this and am trying to adjust for this. My thinking is that although the players are passive and may call down with big hands, they are also very loose, so I am going to get called down here by draws or worse hands more than often enough to make up for the times that I get stacked by two pair or better. In this situation, if my opponent didn't catch his five outer on the river, I was going to stack him. I suspect that in this game that is going to happen much more often than I am going to run into a set that passively calls all the way. Also, the short-stacked nature of the game should somewhat mitigate what you are discussing. I would be much less comfortable pushing my smallish overpair all the way in a game with 300 BB stacks. Actually, in a game like that I would have no idea what to do, which is why I'm started on Party with the small stacks where I am more comfortable.

So check-raising this flop is out of the question, right? I'd really like to get the money in now, which makes a check-raise appealing, but I can't let this check around which is why I bet out. In this game, people are passive enough that I can't rely on this being bet for me? Someone with a flush draw isn't going to take a stab at it, for example? The button isn't going to automatically bet if it is checked to him to try to pick up the pot? Yeah, that's what I figured.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Good call on the 3:1. Still crap though.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused as to why you say that playing this fast was a mistake and then say that my play was fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, it would be a mistake to overbet the pot on the turn here because you are pretty pot committed at that point and it is a pretty normal line for a set to call the flop and then raise the turn. At NL25 on Party, though, it is okay since, as you say, people will chase without correct odds and call down with mid pair.

And yes, I lose my stack with top pair/overpair all the time at Party, but not nearly as often as I stack some moron with it.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
At NL25 on Party, though, it is okay since, as you say, people will chase without correct odds and call down with mid pair.

And yes, I lose my stack with top pair/overpair all the time at Party, but not nearly as often as I stack some moron with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this true all the way up to the $100 and $200 games, or only in the $25 and $50?

[perfectm]

To all that replied to my reply saying that the flop call of $2 was terrible, I apologize for not reading the original situation post more closely. I didn't realize that there was only $2 in the pot when he was calling the $2 bet. I thought there were more callers when it came around to him.

I still think that he may not think he is in that bad of position after the turn though. Again, because the pot was not raised pre-flop I have a hard time putting someone on a hand better than a pair of tens. More likely with that board and that bet I am thinking 7-8 or 8-9.

Almost everyone agrees to raise the pot with JJ, but also seems to think the caller should know he's 10s aren't good when the pot WASN'T raised. If the better had a set (4s,5s, or 8s), I'd probably pay them off. Give action to get action.

So yes, I agree with the consensus cleary that flop call was terrible. Everything after that just happened to work out for them.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]


I still think that he may not think he is in that bad of position after the turn though. Again, because the pot was not raised pre-flop I have a hard time putting someone on a hand better than a pair of tens. More likely with that board and that bet I am thinking 7-8 or 8-9.

Almost everyone agrees to raise the pot with JJ, but also seems to think the caller should know he's 10s aren't good when the pot WASN'T raised. If the better had a set (4s,5s, or 8s), I'd probably pay them off. Give action to get action.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he likes his hand on the turn, wouldn't it be better to raise his last $7 than to call twice? If he is losing the hand, he is going to lose that $7 no matter what since calling commits him to calling the river, so he isn't any worse off putting it in now. If I'm pushing spades, he isn't going to collect from me on the river if I miss (he won't have enough behind for me to consider bluffing), so he'd rather have me put the money in now rather than only having it go in if I hit. My analysis may be off because it may be the case that people in this game don't push draws that hard, but if so what is he expecting to beat? If I have something like an 8, I'd still probably call his last $7 for the pot size, so he still doesn't lose anything by raising here, right? I just don't see any scenario where calling the turn is better than pushing, so his turn/ river play still looks to me like it can't be right. What am I missing?

[TheWorstPlayer]

It's very true at 25 and 50. It's less true at 100 and 200. There are still plenty of donkeys there, but they are less prevalent and bust out faster. I wouldn't make it your operating assumption at 100 and 200. But if villain is an 85 VPIP guy or whatever, then you will certainly be able to bust him with TPTK even at NL100 and NL200.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

That your opponent is at least 80% donkey? Obviously you are right.

[perfectm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I still think that he may not think he is in that bad of position after the turn though. Again, because the pot was not raised pre-flop I have a hard time putting someone on a hand better than a pair of tens. More likely with that board and that bet I am thinking 7-8 or 8-9.

Almost everyone agrees to raise the pot with JJ, but also seems to think the caller should know he's 10s aren't good when the pot WASN'T raised. If the better had a set (4s,5s, or 8s), I'd probably pay them off. Give action to get action.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he likes his hand on the turn, wouldn't it be better to raise his last $7 than to call twice? If he is losing the hand, he is going to lose that $7 no matter what since calling commits him to calling the river, so he isn't any worse off putting it in now. If I'm pushing spades, he isn't going to collect from me on the river if I miss (he won't have enough behind for me to consider bluffing), so he'd rather have me put the money in now rather than only having it go in if I hit. My analysis may be off because it may be the case that people in this game don't push draws that hard, but if so what is he expecting to beat? If I have something like an 8, I'd still probably call his last $7 for the pot size, so he still doesn't lose anything by raising here, right? I just don't see any scenario where calling the turn is better than pushing, so his turn/ river play still looks to me like it can't be right. What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but if he thinks his 10s are good (regardless if they are or not, just that he thinks it) and you have been the agressor so far (betting the flop and turn), then if he raises you after that 10 comes down, you may fold. If you were indeed playing 7-8 or 8-9, you would need help to beat their 10s. By calling he has committed his last money on the river, but there is no guarantee that your money will get in there. When the queen comes down on the river, you'd probably be checking if you only had a middle pair.

I don't play a lot of limit (or any) so maybe that's why the raise doesn't seem like the right move to me.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were indeed playing 7-8 or 8-9, you would need help to beat their 10s. By calling he has committed his last money on the river, but there is no guarantee that your money will get in there. When the queen comes down on the river, you'd probably be checking if you only had a middle pair.

[/ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make if I am going to check the river or not? If I bet the river, he will call. If I check the river, he will bet and I will call. The money goes in on the river whether I am checking or not. Unless you're saying that when I check the river he should check behind. But that can't be right because when I check, as you say, I probably have an 8, so he is best and wants to make me put my money in. Or unless you're saying that I will fold an 8 on the river after I check and he bets. But in that case he is clearly better off raising the turn, as I said. If he isn't going to make money from an unimproved 8 on the river, he would rather have me fold it on the turn than give me a free shot at my 5 outer when money is only going in on the river if I hit. If I have better than an 8, he isn't hurt by raising because he's getting stacked even if he just calls the turn.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were indeed playing 7-8 or 8-9, you would need help to beat their 10s. By calling he has committed his last money on the river, but there is no guarantee that your money will get in there. When the queen comes down on the river, you'd probably be checking if you only had a middle pair.

[/ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make if I am going to check the river or not? If I bet the river, he will call. If I check the river, he will bet and I will call. The money goes in on the river whether I am checking or not. Unless you're saying that when I check the river he should check behind. But that can't be right because when I check, as you say, I probably have an 8, so he is best and wants to make me put my money in. Or unless you're saying that I will fold an 8 on the river after I check and he bets. But in that case he is clearly better off raising the turn, as I said. If he isn't going to make money from an unimproved 8 on the river, he would rather have me fold it on the turn than give me a free shot at my 5 outer when money is only going in on the river if I hit. If I have better than an 8, he isn't hurt by raising because he's getting stacked even if he just calls the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

bobby wins

i like him already

[TheWorstPlayer]

Come on, you must have liked bobbyi already from the high limit forum. If you didn't, then you must LOVE him for his location. Also, I like your new location. Troy really does stink.

[perfectm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were indeed playing 7-8 or 8-9, you would need help to beat their 10s. By calling he has committed his last money on the river, but there is no guarantee that your money will get in there. When the queen comes down on the river, you'd probably be checking if you only had a middle pair.

[/ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make if I am going to check the river or not? If I bet the river, he will call. If I check the river, he will bet and I will call. The money goes in on the river whether I am checking or not. Unless you're saying that when I check the river he should check behind. But that can't be right because when I check, as you say, I probably have an 8, so he is best and wants to make me put my money in. Or unless you're saying that I will fold an 8 on the river after I check and he bets. But in that case he is clearly better off raising the turn, as I said. If he isn't going to make money from an unimproved 8 on the river, he would rather have me fold it on the turn than give me a free shot at my 5 outer when money is only going in on the river if I hit. If I have better than an 8, he isn't hurt by raising because he's getting stacked even if he just calls the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has really spiraled from the actual discussion to a hypothetical, but...

Yes I was saying if you check the river, and he bets, if all you have is the pair of 8s you'd fold. But you do raise a good point that it might be better for him to raise the turn and have you fold and miss out on another 7 dollars, then have the miracle 6 come down on the river and make the (hypothetical) straight.

Again, I revert back to my original statement about the importance of the pre-flop raise with a high PP. From my experience in low-stakes NL, it's a necessity to protect your hand. When I get JJ I am always content to take the pot without a flop/caller. I'll save winning the big pots for AK.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, you must have liked bobbyi already from the high limit forum. If you didn't, then you must LOVE him for his location. Also, I like your new location. Troy really does stink.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont read too many other forums... I guess I should.

Thanks, I had enough of riding horses and staking people, it's time to tell the world how bad Troy is.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I revert back to my original statement about the importance of the pre-flop raise with a high PP. From my experience in low-stakes NL, it's a necessity to protect your hand. When I get JJ I am always content to take the pot without a flop/caller.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I may have mentioned elsewhere, I really underestimated the chance that I could take this down preflop. I was thinking that these are loose players and I won't be able to win this right here, but later I found out that people apparently really do limp and then fold very often in this game. This became particularly obvious when I folded out the field by raising preflop with my AA, except for someone who disconnected all-in and won with his limped Q8 /images/graemlins/mad.gif. (The "mad" graemlin is so cute).

So I should always raise JJ if there has been no raise yet regardless of my position, right? Even UTG this is a raise? What's the smallest pair where I'm not automatically raising preflop (again, assuming the pot hasn't already been raised)?

[TheWorstPlayer]

I hate it when those guys purposefully disconnect when I put them to the test. /images/graemlins/mad.gif (Just kidding, in this case.) Anyways, raising pocket pairs depends a lot on table texture. You will find lots of different types of players, particularly preflop, at SSNL. If you are in EP and there are guys who will call raises with any ace, any two suited, etc. then definitely I would say JJ is a raise. If there are maniacs who steal every time from the blinds, JJ in EP could even be a limp/re-raise. It really all depends. If there are guy who will limp and then call any raise, JJ should be a big raise in LP if that guy has limped. I'm sure you get the idea. There are no hard and fast rules, JJ/QQ are two of the hardest hands to play in NL, my default is to raise them because they are so hard to play and playing against a smaller field is easier, but if you think raising will just inflate the pot and not thin the field, then don't raise them. Basically, I think a bit more experience will give you a very good idea of what effect your actions are likely to have given the specific table you are at. I think you know what your DESIRED effect is.

[perfectm]

I hate to make always statements. Especially since the majority of my play is live, so I can make reads on people, not just based on position and screen names.

UTG I say its a call, and you hope for someone else to raise. If it doesn't get raised you just have to play the hand with caution. The expression never commit all your chips in an unraised pot was invented for a reason.

This is how I play most of my hands, its just one mans honest strategy. (usually played at foxwoods 1/2 NL table)

PP of 9 or lower, i call. I don't raise, even in late position and even with 9s. My theory is that I want the element of surprise if I hit a set on the flop.

PP 10 or higher, AK and AQ, I raise in middle to late position usually to 15.

Other hands I'm not playing unless I can limp from the BB and maybe SB. If I'm feeling loose I may try and limp with KQ/QJ/J10.

But that's just me.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
usually played at foxwoods 1/2 NL table

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice. I used to play at foxwoods all the time. At the time they didn't have any NL. They did have a 5/5 pot limit, but that was a super-tough game with very deep stacks (as was the 5/5 pot game in nyc that I would sometimes watch). It was fun to watch that game. It's nice to see someone bet $500 by pushing a rack of red chips in the pot (they let you have racks on the table unlike the casinos around me). Fossilman used to play that game and was very well known as an excellent, excellent big bet player which is why it annoys me whenever I hear a reference to him being an "unknown internet player" who came out of nowhere to win the wsop. Yes, offtopic.

[ QUOTE ]
The expression never commit all your chips in an unraised pot was invented for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that expression wasn't invented for games with a maximum buyin of 50 BBs.

[perfectm]

Foxwoods has two NL games now. the 1/2 and the 5/5. There is no max buy-in at the 5/5. I have nowhere near the bankroll to play that game, so I am quite content with my little 1/2.

I've seen people with 2 grand at the 1/2 table. I don't think they'd like to lose that in an unraised pot. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif