big blind with ace king

[Tommy Angelo]

Four players limped and the small blind raised which he wouldn't do on a whim. I was in the big blind with AK. I called as did the others. Six of us to the flop which was A-5-2 rainbow. The small blind checked. I put him on a painted pair.

I figured if it was wrong for me to bet, it wasn't wrong by much. So I went ahead and bet and all four limpers folded. The small blind called and we were headsup.

The turn was a queen. He checked. No read. Velly good playa. I checked. The river was a king. He bet and I called. He rolled JJ.

Tommy

[Stork]

Is 3-betting preflop just something you don't do?

[Tommy Angelo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is 3-betting preflop just something you don't do?

[/ QUOTE ]

no

[Kaz The Original]

Why is the article on folding Ace's preflop not on tiltless.com but is on pokerpages?

[mplspoker]

Tommy, I just do not believe that the "soft" way you play gets much value out of your hands and has to cost you long term. It maybe be fun to listen to, but i think you played this hand badly from start to finish. All you are doing is allowing people to catch up with no three bet preflop, no bet on turn, etc. If you can explain how your approach is better, please do.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

what makes you think betting the turn is the correct play?

[Stork]

The turn check is perfect. I trust Tommy's read that opponent has a painted pair. Tommy's turn check can either induce a bluff/value bet by the opponent on the river where he would've folded if Tommy had bet the turn, or if the painted pair was queens and opp. just hit a set, Tommy saves a bet or two.

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is 3-betting preflop just something you don't do?

[/ QUOTE ]

no

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops, I'd just like to point out that I read the sentence where you mention "the small blind wouldn't raise just on a whim" as that he *would* raise just on a whim. That sorta changes things.

[nate1729]

Tommy's not unthinkingly sitting around and just checking and calling with huge hands. This hand is a great example.

Preflop is questionable; I always raise here, but Tommy's playing, presumably, against tough players with higher limping standards than I'm used to. Also, he's hypersensitive to position. It's controversial, which is why he does things like post to 2+2 about it.

On the turn, he's headsup against a player who either just spiked a set against him or is playing one or two outs against him. So he checks behind, keeping himself from getting checkraised with the worst hand or bluffed off the best hand. He also makes it more likely to get paid off on the river. There was a lot of preflop action, but I don't think the pot's so big that he can't afford to give a free card when he's ahead. The river is similarly straightforward. He's induced the bluff, or forced the set to bet his own hand. Given his read JJ is the only hand he can beat, in fact.

Where does playing harder have more value? Preflop is debatable, to me, but it's very situation-specific. All the other choices seem quite straightforward.

--Nate

[SparkyDog]

Tommy gets C/R'ed by QQ here with no outs. JJ and TT fold because even if Tommy didn't have him beat before, he does now. KK is less likely than JJ or TT, but Tommy will only get two bets out of him maximum, if he decides to call down, which he may or may not do.

Checking behind dodges a C/R from QQ, and possibly induces a bluff from KK and JJ.

[FrankLu99]

how come i never see u post hands where you have overplayed or have become over aggressive?

[mplspoker]

I'd like to see a post with a jack hitting the river, and him calling. Personally, anyone playing 15/30-30/60 that is even a break even player would auto three bet this preflop, auto bet flop, turn, and raise river. Becuase this hand happened at Mirage, i guess it changes slightly, but i still think his approach sucks, b/c of str8 value. If Tommy can put him on a pocket pair, then he knows that if he gets check raise on turn he can lay it down, b/c he knows he is drawing dead, so he doesn't have that problem. Realisitically, there is no way that if a guy raises in SB he is going to check with AQ or AK into 5 players. Thoughts.....

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see a post with a jack hitting the river, and him calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume your point is that by checking the turn, he would have allowed that beat? So one time loses 8bb's (the pot plus his river bet), and something like 20 times he wins the extra river bet that he wouldn't have gotten had he bet the turn. Even discounting those times his opponent tripped his queens, in which case this line is saving bets anyway, that's pretty profitable.

[Your Mom]

Turn and River play are perfect. Preflop is terrible.

[Mike Gallo]

Non self weighting decisions, at their best.

After the flop bet, at least you had position for the rest of the hand /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Zeno]

I have no qualms about the preflop call or any aspect of your play.

I've almost finished my new set of P.G. Wodehouse books, by the way, and I think 'Plum' would have played that hand the same way. So it all fits. Neat bit of work.

-Zeno

[Phat Mack]

and I think 'Plum' would have played that hand the same way

Nah, Plum would have foozled it.

[nate1729]

I hate to criticize, but you haven't given a whole lot in the way of coherent explanation. The "straight value" is what tips the scales in favor of a turn bet/river raise? Huh? This is a textbook turn check; SB is capable both of trying to checkraise a set and bluff-raise him off a fairly clear ace. BB gains a bet on the river when he's ahead, and saves money when he's behind, very often. He gives a free card that loses him the pot very infrequently.

Again, not to criticize, but reverting to "auto" actions might not be as good a strategic outlook on the game as Tommy's consistently thoughtful approach. He's also either a huge liar or a counterexample to your "any winning player..." statement.

--Nate

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Nah, Plum would have foozled it.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK; You are probably right. But Bertie Wooster would have played it correctly! - though for all the wrong reasons of course. Which only adds to his charm.

-Zeno

[PassiveCaller]

Maybe one day you'll get it. or at least start to get it...

[PassiveCaller]

I pose this to you if you have the raiser on TT+ or maybe even JJ+ do you consider pre-flop awful still?

[Rick Nebiolo]

Tommy,

Sorry, but I hate the pre-flop call. This is a strong reraise since you have position over the SB raiser and you might drive out a player or two behind you with a hand that generally wants fewer opponents and plays well taking an aggressive stance early.

Let me assume you just called as a change-up to complement your usual fast-ball (i.e., reraise BTF). If so, I still don't like it. Sometimes offbeat/curve-ball/alternate plays are needed because not being deceptive is exploitable by sharp opponents. But this situation doesn't come up often enough to warrant deception.

I guess what I'm saying is that if calling is your default play, then we really disagree. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The turn check is the best play only if we assume the SB is a good, somewhat cautious player. Such a player is capable of not betting the flop and folding to a turn bet since he has to put you on a better hand based on your flop bet into five opponents on a near drawless board. At the same time, he is only making a small mistake taking one off on the flop (to hopefully turn a set).

That said, against typical (not good or cautious /images/graemlins/grin.gif) Los Angeles opponents holding a painted pair you will usually get calls on all three streets, especially in a pot with a fair amount of now dead money.

I like inducing bluffs, but it usually has to be with a hand I'm either far ahead or far behind my opponent AND I won't get action from a worse hand if I bet. This hand just doesn't seem to fit.

~ Rick

[mplspoker]

Totally agree. I'm sorry but this BS people are saying about let them have a free card on turn is rediculous, b/c people will pay off without an ace and the idea that most players are going to come out firing on river when they have jacks and a king hits the river is rediculous.

[mplspoker]

YOur making a lot of assumptions that just aren't true. First, people will pay off in many games all the way. Second, you assume that most players are going to call or bluff when the king hits the river.. also not true. Your assumptions are wrong. If tommy was putting him on a PP from 99-JJ none of them are calling river, and many aren't even trying to bluff this one. Not raising the river with top two is a little bit rediculous IMO. If this hand was posted on PP 15/30 or 30/60 it would be totally slaughtered.... Give me a break.

[nate1729]

Yeah, that's why Tommy gave his read of the situation. Some poor opponents will pay off all the way with JJ here. Plenty won't. And while they won't always pay off or bluff the river, plenty will. The key to this hand is that BB is way ahead or way behind.

By the way, remember that everyone except SB folded the flop; if you want to ignore Tommy's read and stereotype-read SB, perhaps you can use the action to determine that the table's not full of total pay stations...

[mplspoker]

The odds of them spiking a set is 5%, the odds of you 8BB's, if they don't hit what are the odds they are going to call or bluff river... fifty perceent? I just think you have to charge them here.... This of course is assuming that they have what you think they have.........

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
YOur making a lot of assumptions that just aren't true. First, people will pay off in many games all the way. Second, you assume that most players are going to call or bluff when the king hits the river.. also not true. Your assumptions are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for clearing that up for us. It's a good thing you're here to tell us how a complete stranger will play his hand, since Tommy isn't a good enough player to figure out any of the tendencies of a guy sitting right next to him.

[roy_miami]

[ QUOTE ]
Not raising the river with top two is a little bit rediculous IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think folding this river would be more profitable than raising. I'll give you a hint, SB's 3 most likely hands are AA, KK, QQ.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, you assume that most players are going to call or bluff when the king hits the river.. also not true. Your assumptions are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

I would wager villain puts 1 bet in on the river upwards of 90% of the time unimproved.

[M2d]

the concept of "most players" is moot when we already have a profile of our one opponent

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
the concept of "most players" is moot when we already have a profile of our one opponent

[/ QUOTE ]

but people may read this thread and tend to apply Tommy's play to most players.

~ Rick

[CardSharpCook]

Tommy, once again, a hand that has me shaking my head at first, enlightens me when I think about it. For me, it is a common play to check the turn with a dubious holding to induce a river bluff, just never though to do it with TPTK... until now, that is. Thanks again, for another great Hand post.

CSC

[lil feller]

Why ask questions if you won't listen to the answers. Online players often forget that they don't play poker, they play cards, and the difference is huge. Tommy had a read on a situation, and there was no way he was going to get any more value out of this particular opponent. He isn't playing in the party 15 or the party 30, as you keep referencing. He's playing poker, with real people, not LAG maniacs sitting at home in their underwear. When you are in an online game (especially Party) it is reasonably safe to assume that you'll get paid off by a worse hand if you bet this turn/river, in a live game that isn't the case.

When you compare this hand, this situation to an online game, and online strategy, you're comparing apples and oranges. I play a lot of both, and trying to carry strategy from one to the other is simply impossible. Online poker is about cards, numbers, math, and a little bit of reading your opponent. Table poker is about people, situations, their mood, and a little bit about cards.

lf

[lil feller]

If you pay attention to Tommy's posts, most of them involve him being out of position. From what I've been able to gather (and Tommy I don't want to speak for you) by reading his posts Tommy values 2 things above almost all others, in relation to poker.

1. Position--He obviously doesn't have that here, and he is confident the SB is raising with a premium hand, one that AK is probably losing to at the moment.

2. Information--He now knows what the SB has, the SB and the other players have no clue what he has. By not 3 betting preflop he stays ahead in the information race, and can act accordingly on the flop.

Next to none of his posts ever involve him in position. In fact, I can only think of one, here's the link.

AA on the Button (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=mediumholdem&Number=16 16619&Forum=,f4,&Words=&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Main =1616619&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=76&dateran ge=1&newerval=&newertype=w&olderval=3&oldertype=w& bodyprev=#Post1616619)

[partygirluk]

Isn't it better to 3 bet preflop, because having the limpers either fold or call 2 with their inferior holdings are both better than letting them call 1. You also have position over the SB.

[Madd]

The SB is getting 13-1 + implied odds for spiking a jack on the turn. Is this plus the (very small) possibility that Tommy doesn't hold an ace (or 55 or 22) enough to call?

I'm just a small stakes player, but I thought it would be standard to check-call down a hand in which you are either way ahead or way behind, so I don't see anything exciting in the way the turn and river were played. Do I miss anything?

[Tommy Angelo]

"If you can explain how your approach is better, please do."

Better than what?

And how to judge?

The only approach I can do a valid comparison to is my old one. And the only measure I can think of is money. My new approach earns more than the old one. So it's better.

Tommy

[Tommy Angelo]

"I guess what I'm saying is that if calling is your default play, then we really disagree."

It is and we do.

"against typical (not good or cautious ) Los Angeles opponents holding a painted pair you will usually get calls on all three streets, especially in a pot with a fair amount of now dead money."

Rick? Hi there. And, Huh?? Are you saying that I should have taken into account what typical LA players do while I was playing this hand?


Tommy

[ggbman]

If you are that sure he had a Big pair why not raise the rive and fold the a 3 bet. You getting payed off by AJ and AQ all the time when you read is wrong, sometimes he will fold (like when he has jacks) and sometimes he 3 bets with a better hand. Why not raise this here?

[Tommy Angelo]

"but people may read this thread and tend to apply Tommy's play to most players."

What would you have me do differently? It sounds like you're saying that I should only post hands that you think I played right on every street. And further, that I should only posts hands where my opponents fit the profile you have in your mind for what most players think of as being most players.

Tommy

[Tommy Angelo]

"If you are that sure he had a Big pair why not raise the river and fold the a 3 bet. You getting payed off by AJ and AQ all the time when you read is wrong, sometimes he will fold (like when he has jacks) and sometimes he 3 bets with a better hand. Why not raise this here?"

Because AQ and AJ are not big pairs.

[Paluka]

I think raising this river would be pretty awful. If the the sb only raises AK, AA, KK and QQ in this spot I'm not sure how much value 3 betting preflop has.

[faustusmedea]

Well,

Its awful hard to understand why you don't do it here. The "convenient" factor in this hand was the nature of the flop and action that followed on the flop. You got lucky that a tough flop for the limpers hit and your bet knocked them off. What if it comes AT9? Now, you have QJ to contend with.

It would seem the 3 bet strategy is mainly to knock out the limpers and define the hand prior to seeing the flop. Then, when the flop comes as it does, play it like you did. The turn check seems correct because of your read on the opponent.
Heck, if you isolate with a 3 bet, you can even check the flop and perhaps get the player to lead at the turn with his JJ or QQ.


The problem with 3betting is that he possibly lays down JJ, QQ, KK on the flop bet and you lose out on 1.5 BB. But, it seems that you lessen variance somewhat as well.

It just seems with 6 way action the flop is going to connect with the limpers more often than not and you are going to be sandwhiched without position having to make difficult decisions most of the time.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
I put him on a painted pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a solid read on AA-JJ. You have AK. Roy Cooke's analysis looking at combo's out in spots like this is interesting and this hand is a good example. Went over the math twice times but wouldn't be surprised if it's typo city.

Pre-flop combo's -
AA - 3 out you're way behind.
KK - 3 out with 3 outs.
QQ - 6 out with 6 outs.
JJ - 6 out with 6 outs.

Flop combo's -
AA - 1 out and way behind.
KK - 3 out and way ahead.
QQ & JJ - 12 out and way ahead.

Turn combo's -
AA - 1 out way behind.
KK - 3 out way ahead.
QQ - 3 out way behind.
JJ - 6 out way ahead.

It seems like a clear raise pre-flop when you consider dead money and possibly getting h/u. The turn isn't as simple if you consider you'd fold to raise and he'd fold to a bet with KK or JJ. Checking to give a long shot free card might induce a river bluff or call like it did.

[bicyclekick]

Perfect from start to finish. I don't think it's all that debateable either.

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
Perfect from start to finish. I don't think it's all that debateable either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[goofball]

"The onyl approach I can do a valid comparison to is my old one"


So what was your old approach?

[astroglide]

i'm surprised you didn't reraise preflop, mostly because you have position on the sb. i'm not discussing whether or not it's correct here, i'm just commenting that i'm surprised you didn't.

[Tommy Angelo]

"So what was your old approach?"

Faster.

[Turning Stone Pro]

Friends:

Not 3-betting here to isolate the SB and get all that beautiful, soon-to-be dead money from the other limpers is piss-poor. Terrible. You want the whole table to have the proper odds to call the SB raise and get to see the flop??

I wont even discuss the terrible turn play. I can't get past pre-flop.

TSP

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the concept of "most players" is moot when we already have a profile of our one opponent

[/ QUOTE ]

but people may read this thread and tend to apply Tommy's play to most players.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really their own problem if they misapply the information in this thread. Your statement would imply that we never post read based hands and always keep the discussion to basic concepts.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
The SB is getting 13-1 + implied odds for spiking a jack on the turn. Is this plus the (very small) possibility that Tommy doesn't hold an ace (or 55 or 22) enough to call?

I'm just a small stakes player, but I thought it would be standard to check-call down a hand in which you are either way ahead or way behind, so I don't see anything exciting in the way the turn and river were played. Do I miss anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

One reason for the SB to call in this spot is that many decent players in the BB would call BTF and bet out of the BB with any middle pair (once the pre-flop raiser checked). Against such a player, the SB calling three times isn't so bad. He will often pay off the ace and feel a bit silly, he will often snap off the worse hand, and he sometimes spikes a set on the turn or river.

~ Rick

[Kaz The Original]

There is almost NO poker hand that this can be said about, and this certainly isn't one of tho ones that this can be said about.

None the less... nh Tommy.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but people may read this thread and tend to apply Tommy's play to most players. ~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really their own problem if they misapply the information in this thread. Your statement would imply that we never post read based hands and always keep the discussion to basic concepts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm saying that you have to be darn sure of your read to play it this way. Tommy is a much better reader than me (or most of us).

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I (Rick) wrote: "I guess what I'm saying is that if calling is your default play, then we really disagree."

Tommy responded: "It is and we do."

[/ QUOTE ]

We can agree to disagree and still have tea in the morning (I think) /images/graemlins/grin.gif. Still, I'm relatively certain that if we could fast forward (or rewind) a year or two and have a relatively unknown poster post the pre-flop play, the vast majority of top players would advocate a pre-flop three bet and most would agree that this isn't a spot where you need to vary your play.

[ QUOTE ]
I also wrote: "against typical (not good or cautious ) Los Angeles opponents holding a painted pair you will usually get calls on all three streets, especially in a pot with a fair amount of now dead money."

Tommy responded "Rick? Hi there. And, Huh?? Are you saying that I should have taken into account what typical LA players do while I was playing this hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I should have written "modern mid limit opponents" and not been so geocentric. That said, my comment was cautionary - i.e., the turn check works best against a very narrow range of player, one that you apparently identified in this hand. Most of us can't narrow down a player that well, and if we can't betting three times is usually correct.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Perfect from start to finish. I don't think it's all that debatable either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, I haven't been able to post on this sub-forum as much as I used to, but I believe just about everything is still debatable /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

[dankhank]

i like raising the river for the simple fact that you then won't have to showdown your hand (in this case), and you'll leave your opponents wondering where you're at. it's hard to not think you're good on the river.

[CanKid]

[ QUOTE ]
it's hard to not think you're good on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tommy wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
I put him on a painted pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Final board:
A 5 2 Q K

[Madd]

Now it makes sense to me. At first, I thought betting into five players without an ace is chip-spewing. However, nobody showed strength before the flop, the preflop raiser checkt, and the BB has to mob up the pot only once in 13 tries. So, yes, a bet is in order for the BB, even without an ace.
Thank you, Rick.

[nate1729]

And what if you're behind? (50% is a little low, also, by the way.)

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Now it makes sense to me. At first, I thought betting into five players without an ace is chip-spewing. However, nobody showed strength before the flop, the preflop raiser checkt, and the BB has to mob up the pot only once in 13 tries. So, yes, a bet is in order for the BB, even without an ace.
Thank you, Rick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that in spots similar to this, a bet from the BB (after the SB check) looks more like an ace to the remaining opponents and has a better chance of taking it down than a lead bet from the SB. In other words, had the SB been an aggro player and bet, many modern opponents might think he is betting the big paired paints, and might try a move with any pair (or nothing at all) hoping to get a better hand to lay down.

~ Rick

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Friends:

Not 3-betting here to isolate the SB and get all that beautiful, soon-to-be dead money from the other limpers is piss-poor. Terrible. You want the whole table to have the proper odds to call the SB raise and get to see the flop??

I wont even discuss the terrible turn play. I can't get past pre-flop.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Preflop I agree that it's a reraise. The turn is absolutely beautiful.
-James

[Joe Tall]

but Tommy's playing, presumably, against tough players with higher limping standards than I'm used to

You obviously have not played Hold'em in Northern California.

[Tommy Angelo]

"One reason for the SB to call in this spot [on the flop] is that many decent players in the BB would call BTF and bet out of the BB with any middle pair (once the pre-flop raiser checked)."

That's exactly right, and I think the SB was capable of puttin me on being decent enough to make that play, and that's why, when you think about it, SB's bet on the river is a really good bet if:

1)He is going to call if I bet anyway.
2)He thinks I might call him down with TT, 99, 88, 77, or 66.
3) He thinks he can safely fold to a raise.

I'm really liking his river bet now.

Tommy

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
SB's bet on the river is a really good bet if:

1)He is going to call if I bet anyway.
2)He thinks I might call him down with TT, 99, 88, 77, or 66.
3) He thinks he can safely fold to a raise.

I'm really liking his river bet now.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's (2) that concerns me. Is your play really consistent with a mid pair? If you had something like 99, wouldn't it be standard for you to have fired one more time on the turn and then maybe checked down the river? Would you really often bet 99 on this flop and then check behind on the turn?

[nate1729]

Heh. I just meant: I'm used to the Foxwoods 5-10 and 10-20 games... you know how they are. I'd have a hard time not reraising a table full of verrrry loose limpers. Mr. Angelo didn't tell us much about the table conditions, so it's a little harder to evaluate his preflop action.

[M2d]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, I'm relatively certain that if we could fast forward (or rewind) a year or two and have a relatively unknown poster post the pre-flop play, the vast majority of top players would advocate a pre-flop three bet and most would agree that this isn't a spot where you need to vary your play

[/ QUOTE ]

Rick, I'm not a top player, by any stretch of the imagination (maybe in my own house, but my wife's about to give birth, so that may change soon), but I think it's absolutely wrong to raise in this spot. I don't think it takes a great reader to identify those players who will only raise in the SB against a big field if they have a big pp. Tommy, in the OP clearly states that this player is one of them. if this is the case, you're at best sort of tied (small chance of this player raising AKs, I guess), but more likely behind to a pp. how far behind is tough to tell, as well, but two of your straight cards are probably out.
Now, you have a field of callers behind you whom we CAN apply the "typical" tag to because we don't know their tendencies (as TA hasn't given them to us). typical probably calls all bets back to him once he's put the first one in pre-flop. what's the point of making the pot huge, when the only opponent you have position on has you beat? better, I think (much better), to lie in wait to see what flops.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh. I just meant: I'm used to the Foxwoods 5-10 and 10-20 games... you know how they are. I'd have a hard time not reraising a table full of verrrry loose limpers. Mr. Angelo didn't tell us much about the table conditions, so it's a little harder to evaluate his preflop action.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same as your 10 game. I know how both are.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[nate1729]

Huh. Thanks for the info. In that case, yeah, I like reraising preflop.

By the way, if you see a clumsy flannel-clad 6'3" guy at the 10 game, come say hi.

--Nate

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
...I think it's absolutely wrong to raise in this spot. I don't think it takes a great reader to identify those players who will only raise in the SB against a big field if they have a big pp. Tommy, in the OP clearly states that this player is one of them. if this is the case, you're at best sort of tied (small chance of this player raising AKs, I guess), but more likely behind to a pp. how far behind is tough to tell, as well, but two of your straight cards are probably out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the pocket pair is AA or KK (relatively rare, since you have one of each)you aren't that far behind. If you are against AA or KK, you gain information (since these hands will generally cap and not fear most boards) When it isn't an AA or KK, the dead money and pressure you put on the limpers is what makes this play.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, you have a field of callers behind you whom we CAN apply the "typical" tag to because we don't know their tendencies (as TA hasn't given them to us). typical probably calls all bets back to him once he's put the first one in pre-flop. what's the point of making the pot huge, when the only opponent you have position on has you beat? better, I think (much better), to lie in wait to see what flops.

[/ QUOTE ]

If no one folds to a three bet you still gain equity that will be shared with the SB. Think about it - you limp with a limping hand, now do you like it when it comes back to you for two more?

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
"One reason for the SB to call in this spot [on the flop] is that many decent players in the BB would call BTF and bet out of the BB with any middle pair (once the pre-flop raiser checked)."

That's exactly right, and I think the SB was capable of puttin me on being decent enough to make that play, and that's why, when you think about it, SB's bet on the river is a really good bet if:

1)He is going to call if I bet anyway.
2)He thinks I might call him down with TT, 99, 88, 77, or 66.
3) He thinks he can safely fold to a raise.

I'm really liking his river bet now.

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Too tird to eloborate or spell correctly /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Friends:

[/ QUOTE ]

Either you're addressing a Quaker meeting or you're delusional, I doubt you have any of these.

Although at least you mentioned something about the hand for once, if not in a remotely constructive way.

NT

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
The only approach I can do a valid comparison to is my old one. And the only measure I can think of is money. My new approach earns more than the old one. So it's better.


[/ QUOTE ]

PWNED.

-BTW, Preflop is obviosly debatable, but postlop was perfect.

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless the pocket pair is AA or KK (relatively rare, since you have one of each)you aren't that far behind

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all-in No Limit logic being applied to a limit single street decision. Tommy is only going to flop a pair or better 1/3 or the time here, and if he doesn't flop a pair the SB is going to punish him for both the turn and the river, right? This isn't a coin flip, and Tommy isn't guaranteed to see all 5 cards.

[ QUOTE ]
If no one folds to a three bet you still gain equity that will be shared with the SB. Think about it - you limp with a limping hand, now do you like it when it comes back to you for two more

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very valid point...maybe. Common limping hands include pocket pairs, over which the SB gains equity...but not Hero. However, all that aside, I think you can argue the value gained by raising here from the other players. In doing so, however, Hero gives information, and greatly looses his ability to collect it post-flop. I'm not sure which is more valuable, especially since the latter can't really be quantified.

lf

[tolbiny]

While at the table did you have an estimate as to how many of your opponents would fold to a three bet preflop?

Would the Sb cap it with QQ-TT (IYO)?

[tolbiny]

Tommy-
Once it was heads up after your flop bet was your intention to check behind any turn card or just a K or Q, or K,Q,J?

[CanIPlay]

Tommy; If the SB limps, what is your play?

[Tommy Angelo]

"While at the table did you have an estimate as to how many of your opponents would fold to a three bet preflop?"

No.

"Would the Sb cap it with QQ-TT (IYO)?"

I don't think so.

[Tommy Angelo]

"Once it was heads up after your flop bet was your intention to check behind any turn card or just a K or Q, or K,Q,J?"

I think I would have bet the turn had it been anything but a Q or J.

[Tommy Angelo]

"If the SB limps, what is your play?"

Check.

[ggbman]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you are that sure he had a Big pair why not raise the river and fold the a 3 bet. You getting payed off by AJ and AQ all the time when you read is wrong, sometimes he will fold (like when he has jacks) and sometimes he 3 bets with a better hand. Why not raise this here?"

Because AQ and AJ are not big pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not what i meant. Your not raising because your afraid he might have KK or QQ, hence your read for a big pair. But i am saying that he might have AQ or AJ suited a good percentage of time time and your preflop read might be incorrect. If you raise the river you are getting pair off by these hands. He will re-raise KK and QQ and if your that sure in your read you can fold to the three bet. That is what i was saying.

[Tommy Angelo]

"But i am saying that he might have AQ or AJ suited a good percentage of time time and your preflop read might be incorrect."

I agree that a read that seems really right and really solid can sometimes be wrong, including my read (after he checked the flop) that he had KK, QQ, or JJ.

But I don't see how that is relevant. If I'm lucky enough to get a good read on a guy, I'm going to make my play based on my read. Are you suggesting otherwise? It sounds like you are saying, "Even though you were extremely sure that he did not have AQ or AJ, you should have played it as if he might have had AQ or AJ, just in case your read was wrong."

Tommy

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless the pocket pair is AA or KK (relatively rare, since you have one of each)you aren't that far behind

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all-in No Limit logic being applied to a limit single street decision. Tommy is only going to flop a pair or better 1/3 or the time here, and if he doesn't flop a pair the SB is going to punish him for both the turn and the river, right? This isn't a coin flip, and Tommy isn't guaranteed to see all 5 cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point but neither is the SB. Assuming he raises with QQ, JJ and perhaps TT, he is going to get pushed off hands when the board becomes scary. AK also doesn't have to flop a pair to continue and very well may be raising the SB in certain situations where he doesn't pair.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If no one folds to a three bet you still gain equity that will be shared with the SB. Think about it - you limp with a limping hand, now do you like it when it comes back to you for two more

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very valid point...maybe. Common limping hands include pocket pairs, over which the SB gains equity...but not Hero. However, all that aside, I think you can argue the value gained by raising here from the other players. In doing so, however, Hero gives information, and greatly looses his ability to collect it post-flop. I'm not sure which is more valuable, especially since the latter can't really be quantified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero also gains information, e.g. continued post flop aggression from the SB may allow him to get away from hands where he is badly beat.

Anyway, sun is out, I need to work on my tan /images/graemlins/smile.gif

~ Rick

[andyfox]

Because, I assume, you're out of position?

If so, then why not, for the price of one small bet, try to get into position by 3-betting when sb raises?

[astroglide]

exactly what i wondered/posted. it seems unlike him.

[big show]

You don't three bet pre-flop. Is your read that sb would only raise with AA or KK. No? Or you don't re-raise because you are managing the size of the pot to in order to create bigger mistakes for the field if they want to chase? If so, I like your line.

[Tommy Angelo]

"Because, I assume, you're out of position?"

Yes. Deeply.

"If so, then why not, for the price of one small bet, try to get into position by 3-betting when sb raises?"

I don't think it's a realistic hope to get four limpers to fold before the flop for two cold. Remember, they were going to call the raise. So the price is only one small bet to them too, to call two cold. And they'll have position on two guys with big hands who will pump up the pop from up front. All they have to do is make a hand that beats aces and they'll probably win a monster. I'm not talking about the particular opponents I faced. I'm talking all players everywhere. I don't think the likelihood of getting four limpers to fold here is very good. And when you say "get into position," to me that means last. For example, if there had been only one limper, who I knew was capable of folding for two more bets before the flop, then I would have reraised preflop for sure, with a realistic hope of getting into position.

Tommy

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
I pose this to you if you have the raiser on TT+ or maybe even JJ+ do you consider pre-flop awful still?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I put him on and it is awful. You have so much equity with all of those other players in the hand. If this is 3 or 4 to the flop then I would agree with Tommy's call because raiser has a very good hand.

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
"If the SB limps, what is your play?"

Check.

[/ QUOTE ]


/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[andyfox]

Yeah, they all probably wouldn't have folded. But aren't you that much better off if one or two or three or them do?

I'm not so sure, too, they look at it as one more small bet. They chose not to raise first time around. They're not thinking, when they limp, "OK, if one of the blind raises, it's going to be one more to me anyway. And if two of them raise, well it might have bven one anyway, this is only one more than that."

And if, worst comes to worst, they all call, I still have a better hand than all of them.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, they all probably wouldn't have folded. But aren't you that much better off if one or two or three or them do?

I'm not so sure, too, they look at it as one more small bet. They chose not to raise first time around. They're not thinking, when they limp, "OK, if one of the blind raises, it's going to be one more to me anyway. And if two of them raise, well it might have bven one anyway, this is only one more than that."

And if, worst comes to worst, they all call, I still have a better hand than all of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw Tommy's response in my email and was thinking (somewhat less articulately) exactly what you posted above. Great (yours) and average minds (mine) sometimes think alike /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

[SCfuji]

seems hero is way ahead or way behind. and when hero is way ahead the villain has 2 outs so giving him a free card hurts him 1 in every 23 times (i think). so hero can bet and get nothing for the hand or gamble by giving a free river card and get an extra bet on the river 22 out of 23 times while only losing one bet 1 out of 23 times. turn check looks better than betting.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's a realistic hope to get four limpers to fold before the flop for two cold. Remember, they were going to call the raise. So the price is only one small bet to them too, to call two cold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this method of thinking. Yes, you are correct in stating that you are up against a faces pair in SB hands as that is what I would put them on first hand raising out of the SB provided SB is a solid player. However, if I have AK then I have significantly more than enough EV to 3bet before the flop, not to chase out the limpers so most limpers at his level do not fold for 3 bet or caps once limped.

Maybe it's me, but I could care less if the limpers folded or not. My chance of winning may go down with more callers against my AK, but I think the pot size more than makes up for this when I do win.

[ QUOTE ]
All they have to do is make a hand that beats aces and they'll probably win a monster. I'm not talking about the particular opponents I faced. I'm talking all players everywhere. I don't think the likelihood of getting four limpers to fold here is very good

[/ QUOTE ]

But your AK could also win a monster too, no? And given the pot is big, if you hit AK against QQ, JJ or weaker A-x kicker, they have to pay you off due to pot odds.

Yes, I know you have a lack of position, little leverage to chase out draws if the pot is a size worth chasing, but to me that seems a flawed way to think. You are giving up a little more, 1 more SB or 1 more BB to extract a lot more bets and a good potential to win a lot more.

Lawrence

[tolbiny]

well i definately like the check on the turn.

Your play with AK from the blinds is always going to have its detractors (ie the rest of the forum). If you say that you are winning more playing this way, then you are winning more playing this way.

Of course you appear to have changed a great number of things about your play, and it might be a bit presumptuous to think that each of them individually has caused the increase in winrate... on the other hand it might be a sum of the parts blah blah blah.


Checking just isn't much fun.
Betting is fun.
raising also fun
check raising in the dark
now thats the nutz.