my new favorite line

[wiggs73]

"Way to stay in there on that flush draw, good play"

He responded with "ty" so I hope he thinks I'm being serious. Those 10-high flush draws are very powerful you know. Anyway, this is not a bad beat thread, it actually made me start wondering... Am I wasting my time and chips to consider pot odds at the 5+.50 level? I would say that half the table has never heard of pot odds at this level, and 3 of the other 5 don't know how to calculate them. The other person does, but doesn't make decisions based on them. Or at least that's how it seems. Seriously, why do it if they will fold to a 1/6 pot sized bet with nothing and stay in on draws with a bet thats 3/4 pot to pot-sized? Other than patting myself on the back for making them violate Slansky's fundamental theorem of poker, I'm seeing less and less value in doing this. Thoughts anyone?

[skipperbob]

See Irieguy post relative to Heirarchy of Needs: #3 = need to call

[yoadrians]

What are 'pot odds'?!?! Is that, like, the odds of the other $5+.50 players at your SNG table being completely stoned when the game starts? Sure does seem that way sometimes, anyway.

Just kidding, man. Seriously, you're playing right about the same level I'm playing at, but I think the thing that gives you a distinct advantage over the other players at the table is that you're aware of such concepts and use them in your decision-making process while playing those low-level SNGs/micro-to-small limit Limit tables, etc.

You'll take your share of beats, but who cares? You're playing the right/correct way, and that's gonna help you progress and be a winning player against the people who think pot odds are what I said they were above.

Keep your head up, man.

[Shanemex]

I don't understand what the problem is. Are you asking why should you bother making a bet so that a call is incorrect for an opponent if he is just going to call anyway? If you're not giving them proper odds and they call anyway then you make money. If you bet less and give them proper odds then they make money because their draws are profitable.

[wiggs73]

[ QUOTE ]
See Irieguy post relative to Heirarchy of Needs: #3 = need to call

[/ QUOTE ]
Link anyone? I'm terrible with the search function...

[ QUOTE ]
Are you asking why should you bother making a bet so that a call is incorrect for an opponent if he is just going to call anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much. Because I'm wondering if I could accomplish the same goal with smaller bets relative to the pot. What I'm finding is that many, MANY players at this level will call when it is incorrect, so they also would when it is correct. So I lose less chips when they suck out. And likewise, they will fold when it is correct, but not BECAUSE it is correct, but because they don't have a hand. So there again, they'd do the same thing for less of a bet. It's at least arguable that I could achieve largely the same results, but at less risk to my stack.

I'm not saying I'm going to start min-betting everything, but that I might bet half the pot when 3/4 would be 'technically correct' because I think it will do the same thing. But I wanted to get some 2+2ers' opinions before I do, because playing technically incorrect isn't something I'm a big fan of. But sometimes I feel like at these lower limit buy-ins it might almost be +EV to, at least in some situations such as this one.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm finding is that many, MANY players at this level will call when it is incorrect, so they also would when it is correct. So I lose less chips when they suck out.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Wookie lives on Endor, you must acquit.

THIS... DOES NOT... MAKE SENSE.

If you think they'll call when it's incorrect, bet the largest amount you think they will call.

[wiggs73]

[ QUOTE ]

If the Wookie lives on Endor, you must acquit.

THIS... DOES NOT... MAKE SENSE.

If you think they'll call when it's incorrect, bet the largest amount you think they will call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I just realized I'm neglecting all the times they don't suck out. Sometimes I can get tunnel vision after a series of suckout losses and forget that sometimes, the best hand actually does hold up. Thanks for politely pointing that out.

[Runner Runner]

[ QUOTE ]
Because I'm wondering if I could accomplish the same goal with smaller bets relative to the pot. What I'm finding is that many, MANY players at this level will call when it is incorrect, so they also would when it is correct. So I lose less chips when they suck out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point you are making has a lot merit. Early in sng's I make a lot of 1/3 to 1/2 the pot size bets (whether I am bluffing, semi-bluffing, or I have a hand) partially because I don't want to commit so much of my chips that I cannot steal when the blinds get big. This is why tournament play is different from cash game play, because survival is key in tournament poker.

[Bluff Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because I'm wondering if I could accomplish the same goal with smaller bets relative to the pot. What I'm finding is that many, MANY players at this level will call when it is incorrect, so they also would when it is correct. So I lose less chips when they suck out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point you are making has a lot merit. Early in sng's I make a lot of 1/3 to 1/2 the pot size bets (whether I am bluffing, semi-bluffing, or I have a hand) partially because I don't want to commit so much of my chips that I cannot steal when the blinds get big. This is why tournament play is different from cash game play, because survival is key in tournament poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has no merit, If he thinks his opponent is on a draw then he should bet the amount to give him incorrect odds to call. Your opponents lack of knowledge regarding pot odds doesnt hurt you it helps you.

[AtticusFinch]

In a multi last night I raise 5x the quite large BB and get a caller. I have pocket kings. An ace falls on the flop (of course) and the caller comes out betting. I think for a moment and muck. He asks me what I had, and for some reason I'm feeling like bitching, so I tell him. He says, "Sorry, I had ace ten. You can't lay that down."

My response? "Nope, you sure can't"

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
In a multi last night I raise 5x the quite large BB and get a caller. I have pocket kings. An ace falls on the flop (of course) and the caller comes out betting. I think for a moment and muck. He asks me what I had, and for some reason I'm feeling like bitching, so I tell him. He says, "Sorry, I had ace ten. You can't lay that down."

My response? "Nope, you sure can't"

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice job of feeding the fish.

[Vee Quiva]

In the first 3 levels of Sit n Gos when everyone has a big stack (defined by more than 10x the BB)top pair is not that great of a hand.

I think it is fine to bet 1/2 or less of the pot with top pair and good kicker into a flop with 2 of the same suit. Let's be honest here.....when you hit your top pair and bet the pot, how many times do you get called? On the times you do get called, do you feel comfortable that you still have the best hand? It's much better to play these hands in position and keep the pots small. Going broke with a big stack early in a tournament is a big sin.

When the stacks get smaller down below 10 BB, that's the time to push your top pair good kicker hands hard, because they are less likely to call their whole stack away on a draw. If they do call, you are still the favorite to win.