sklansky hand from WPT, etc.

[schwza]

sklansky posted this in the wpt forum (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2016366&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1)

Tough table at beginning of tournament. Everybody has $10,000. Blinds 25 and 50. Two early limpers. Hero limps in middle position with two black aces. Two late limpers. Flop QdTd4h. Small blind is Jennifer Harmon who bets out $400. All fold! How bad did hero play this hand?


this goes against pretty much everything i thought i knew.

[SossMan]

paul p's post pretty much sums it up.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
paul p's post pretty much sums it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

paul's first post was: [ QUOTE ]
I would often have played it the same way as the hero too.

If you raise with AA here you had better raise with a lot of hands or you pummel yourself with reverse implied odds.

If you raise here you are just asking to win a small pot or lose a big one. If you limp you lose a very small pot, win a sizable one when it's raised behind you preflop and you re-pop it, or win an enormous one when set over set hits.

To me, people who think this AA was badly played are almost certainly the sort who overvalue AA when the money is very deep -- my favorite opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

what i don't get is: [ QUOTE ]
If you raise with AA here you had better raise with a lot of hands or you pummel yourself with reverse implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, yeah i'm raising with a lot more hands than AA. this seems like a really weird argument. i'm definitely raising 99+/AQ+ and some other stuff thrown in. you also can avoid "pummel[ing] yourself with reverse implied odds" if you don't declare "i'm going to the felt!" as soon as you raise pre-flop.

but my bigger issue is the fold on the flop. you've got to be ahead of harmon the vast majority of the time. there are only two limpers left to act behind you. why not make it 1k and play from there? you can check behind on the turn if you're worried about keeping the pot small.

i think harmon raises QQ and maybe TT, so we're only behind 44 and QT. why fold?

[fnord_too]

I just posted my response there, pre flop just criminally bad. Post flop fold is good given the situation.

[Tim H]

If your raising big with QQ+ and big aces you are "currently" playing weak tight looking to play small pots and take them down early and safely, this is how I play so it comes from experience /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Once people recognize this you better hope for a table move or adjust your play. You will be winning small pots on the flop if a big card hits and you bet into it or you will be getting bet off your hand or calling big bets into a flop you will be behind on.

Once I made the adjustment to min raise every hand I play I have much better success. Still don't know why min raises boggle everyone up /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Aggressives will call big pf raises from me in a tourney and either fold or push the flop. I believe this is where the negative EV stmt comes from.

[MLG]

The flop is very very tricky here. My initial thought was also raise to 1k, and I dont think that's all that wrong. My problem is that on a flop witj 2 broadways and a flush draw you are very seldom going to see a turn and river that makes you happy. Harman could have any number of hands here, and you are quite often going to be faced with a diffuicult turn and river decision with very little information. Does that make the fold correct, as opposed to the small raise, I don't know but its close.

[nolanfan34]

Mike, you've played in a big stack event. If you had AA in that situation, early in the tournament, would you really limp with it?

[MLG]

never, but that doesnt make it wrong. that's what makes the hand so interesting.

Its no secret that I'm an active player. Alex Brenes put it nicely to me in the Bahamas saying I was very hard to put on a hand. Alex Balandin (the eventual runner-up) said it not quite as nicely when he said, you play [censored] cards. Many of the other better players in this forum (Soss, Che, Woodguy, Chief) play in a similar style. We are the same guys who always talk about taking any edge you have, so often I think those two ideas get mixed up. The fact is you can play a much more conservative set of hands and be very very successful if you play correctly (ala Dan Harrington).

Each style though has different set of problems that you need to contend with. For me, since I'm raising frequently preflop it means that other players reraise me more frequently, and no matter how much I might try to avoid it there will be times when I'll be playing big preflop pots as a coinflip. I don't like it, but if Im raising twice an orbit and somebody plays back at me while I happen to be holding AQ, I'm probably gonna call because their reraising range is larger against me. This isn't a problem for a conservative player who might be able to throw away AQ there without a problem.

A more conservative style faces the opposite problem. There are situations (like the one Sklansky discussed) where they will be raising very few hands. Thus, if they raise they are in effect flipping their cards face-up. To combat that sometimes they will have to limp AA in a situation like that, just like I have to call a reraise with AQ. Its uncomfortable and unorthodox but you need to do it because the way you've played all your other hands dictates it.

To sum it all up: This hand to me is about the measures we take to keep others from exploiting our strategy. My strategy doesnt dictate me taking this measure, other people's might.

[Luke]

Um, really really good post.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
never, but that doesnt make it wrong. that's what makes the hand so interesting.

Its no secret that I'm an active player. Alex Brenes put it nicely to me in the Bahamas saying I was very hard to put on a hand. Alex Balandin (the eventual runner-up) said it not quite as nicely when he said, you play [censored] cards. Many of the other better players in this forum (Soss, Che, Woodguy, Chief) play in a similar style. We are the same guys who always talk about taking any edge you have, so often I think those two ideas get mixed up. The fact is you can play a much more conservative set of hands and be very very successful if you play correctly (ala Dan Harrington).

Each style though has different set of problems that you need to contend with. For me, since I'm raising frequently preflop it means that other players reraise me more frequently, and no matter how much I might try to avoid it there will be times when I'll be playing big preflop pots as a coinflip. I don't like it, but if Im raising twice an orbit and somebody plays back at me while I happen to be holding AQ, I'm probably gonna call because their reraising range is larger against me. This isn't a problem for a conservative player who might be able to throw away AQ there without a problem.

A more conservative style faces the opposite problem. There are situations (like the one Sklansky discussed) where they will be raising very few hands. Thus, if they raise they are in effect flipping their cards face-up. To combat that sometimes they will have to limp AA in a situation like that, just like I have to call a reraise with AQ. Its uncomfortable and unorthodox but you need to do it because the way you've played all your other hands dictates it.

To sum it all up: This hand to me is about the measures we take to keep others from exploiting our strategy. My strategy doesnt dictate me taking this measure, other people's might.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, duh.

[nolanfan34]

Great explanation, thanks.

I need to go back toward my Dan Harrington style, and stop trying to emulate you LAGs.

[MLG]

there's no shame in folding 57s in MP /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[skoal2k4]

i read that whole damn thread... I don't think I can play it that way, but not for the reasons paul or anybody else suggested. If it's a tough table, I want to raise and drive people out. Harmon and I'm sure a few others at that table have more experience than me and I don't want to give them a chance to outplay me on the flop. I raise and take down a small pot, I'm happy with that. That's what I would do in any tourney. Take down many small pots and maintain an aggressive image.

Thoughts?

[MLG]

Its very hard to win lots of small pots against top notch competition.

[Tim H]

if its a tough table and I am the weakest player there (not a far stretch) I'd push PF and hope someone called (probably not) for a quick double up to soften the errors I'd make later on, but:
That's the whole problem: if you are one of the better ones at the table you are going to try and get some value out of that hand. If you are a weaker player and you take down a small pot PF or on the flop those chips you won don't mean as much in your hands.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Still don't know why min raises boggle everyone up


[/ QUOTE ]

The minraise makes it tougher for me to put my opponent on a hand because I will see damn near everything min-raised.

I don't like it as it gives the BB implied odds to out flop you.

Also, its easier to get one caller which then spurrs more to call PF given all the expressed and implied odds flying around the table.

If I had a dime for everytime I saw AA-QQ go down in flames because the BB called PF getting 3-1 and nailing the flop, ...well.....I'd have a lot of dimes.

My game is based on trying to let my oppoents make mistakes, they don't make many getting 3-1 or better.

Regards,
Woodguy

[Tim H]

[ QUOTE ]

The minraise makes it tougher for me to put my opponent on a hand because I will see damn near everything min-raised.


[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly why I do it. I play early/middle stages very weak tight. I have no problem laying hands down that meet resistance.

The wake up kick for me was a few months ago: my standard play was big raise PF 5-10x BB in the *early* stages with AA/KK/AKs. I'd always get a caller from one of those laggy types, and I would then get stacked on the flop. The problem I found with a big raise is it's like throwing a tbone in a pit of ravenous dogs.

Just me, but this has worked quite well.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
there's no shame in folding 57s in MP /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey, I was on the button....

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there's no shame in folding 57s in MP /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey, I was on the button....

[/ QUOTE ]

Hee hee. I don't blame you, I'm such a results oriented donk, that enough 53s hands that turn into full houses just reinforce my wannabe-lag plays.

[MLG]

that's the second post this thread that you've made that actually made me laugh out loud.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
my standard play was big raise PF 5-10x BB in the *early* stages with AA/KK/AKs

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's never a good line.

I sometimes open raise 4xBB in level 1 (online) after that, I settle into 3xBB then once the BB hits 100 I move to 2.5 and stay there.

Regards,
Woodguy

[adanthar]

I was thinking about this hand and there are three big problems with it:

-Half the point of the limp is that you will often get raised behind. Well, that's all well and good when you do, but so far in this hand there are 2 EP limpers and (presumably) a world class player limping behind. Who's gonna try raising these guys out of the pot at this point without KK-QQ, and if they have one of those, wouldn't you have been much better off raising in the first place?

-The counter is that you need to disguise limp or disguise raise. OK. My own default raising standards in this spot are AA-JJ and AK-AQ, which is probably too tight, but I'll go much lower if I think the limpers suck...and that's already a pretty decent range of hands. Moreover, sometimes I check AK when rags flop and sometimes I'll check aces; more often, I'll continuation bet everything, including the 'limpers suck' 99 when the flop is AKx. I think that's concealment enough, and I'm on the weak/tight side of the coin here if anything. Why go one further by inviting this limpfest when you're gonna be sandwiched in the middle with what amounts to a probably counterfeited monster?

-This goes back to that thread last week where someone had a hypo of AA UTG on the first hand of a 10K WPT. I said limp/reraising was a decent idea (admittedly, I was bored and screwing around) and MLG shot it down. Then I got more bored and said that limp/pushing could work and a couple of people deservedly called me an idiot. But if half the point of the flop fold is so you could fold AA face up...I'd rather limp/push PF, thanks.

PS: The flop fold is fine because other than a turn 4 there's absolutely no card that makes me think I'm ahead.

[Che]

[ QUOTE ]
this has worked quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be able to play AA/KK/AKs profitably (i.e. well) with almost any preflop approach.

The fact that your approach is working well does not mean it is the best approach for you (although it could be given your style of play).

Later,
Che

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
Fellow MTT'ers. My views on this hand seems to be provocative in the WPT-forum. Is it really such a weird idea, and why?

Hero takes JHs seat. Hero looks at flop. Hero would not even need to look at his own cards (just pretend to do it. Heknows his poker-mathematics and knows that out of 49 cards there are 2,352 combinations. Hero thinks that if I bet 400 into this flop I will be called only by Axd, QQ, KdJd, Jd9d, TT, 44, QT, Q4, T4 (the pros are smart enough to lay down AA and KK if hero is a respected player /images/graemlins/wink.gif). The calling cards are 78 out of 2,352 combinations. 4 players yet to act, it means there is approx. 13% chance that somebody has a calling hand (maybe they would have folded 1/2 of those 2,352 combinations so it leaves it to approx. 26%). Hero needs to win the pot uncontested 67% to have +EV.

If hero takes a look at his cards and sees Ad he knows it blocks a lot of calling hands and feels even surer about his EV (he was not fully sure of their limping range).

Hero bets. Sklansky and other pros fold. Hero happy /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Sam T.]

I've been thinking about this from a couple of perspectives.

First, we don't know what the player's goal here was. If there was a loose cannon or two still to act, he may well have been going for a limp-reraise. While we might question this approach, I can't say that at this point it's a horrible decision. You risk $50, and have the chance to make much more. (With three or four limpers, the buton would have to raise 400 or so. You reraise to t1200, and the button is in a difficult position. Depending on your opponent, you could make a lot of money here.)

Okay, but what if the Hero does NOT think that a raise is likely. Does his play make sense then? Two limpers to Hero, so he has to raise to t250-300. If he does this, what will his opponents put him on? Yes this depends on who the hero is, but the fact that there are still 4-5 players to act could narrow the range of hands considerably. (MLG might raise here with KQs, but he is not going to be happy with a reraise.) So a raise to t300 says, "I have really, really good hand."

What will the Villains do? Well, they have incredibly deep stacks, and huge implied odds. If you've got 66 and t10,000, why not take a chance? t300 well under the 5% rule of thumb for calling a raise with pockets. Under these circumstances, what non-ace flop will the Hero love if his PF raise is called? (I think this getting to the point about reverse implied odds, but my grasp of that concept is on the fuzzy side.) So the Hero would have to raise a huge amount to make calling incorrect. If the Hero would rather play for set value, it makes some sense.

I think the confusion is, in part, because few of us are used to having such deep stacks...

Sam

[fnord_too]

The reason raising with something like 89s is ok here as well is, say you raise to 250, then someone reraises you to 750. You have the implied odds to call them if you can put them on a big pair. I hate a reraise with something like KQs, and would likely muck it. With something like a small pair or suited connectors, I feel much better about standing a re-raise. If you go this route, you can raise with AA every time without giving up much if anything. The only thing people know is that if you didn't raise you don't have AA, but you can vary your play such that the conditional probability that you have AA if you raise is almost anything you want it to be.

[number5858]

Why not just mix up your play somewhat randomly? Maybe raise preflop between 2XBB to 5XBB and an occasional limp?

Mike, dont you change gears sometimes depending on the tournament situation, stack sizes, table makup, position, etc.

[MLG]

if by Mike you mean me, then yeah sure I do, but the gear changing will likely involve raising or limping, QQ/JJ/1010/99/AQ and some other random hands, not likely AA. Again though, for somebody who raises less, I can absolutely see how limping AA here is sometimes necessary.

[number5858]

Right MLG, I was asking you. I think the real point is to mix up your play so that you are unpredictable. I like Harrington's approach where for a lot of hands he raises maybe 15% of the time 2XBB, and maybe 15% of the time 5XBB, then maybe 35% of the time 3XBB and 35% of the time 4XBB with an occasional limp thrown in. He varies the percentages somewhat depending on the hand and position.

[MLG]

yeah but thats when your opening the pot, not when 1 there are already limpers, and 2 you are deciding whether to raise or limp.

I have been trying to digest and re-digest the essence of this thread. I find it intereting that the initial chorus of "nays" almost suddenly turned to "ayes" when Sklansky's anointed "tenth smartest poker player" chimed in with the merits of the "move" and realizing that hero is no other than the foremost poker guru of them all.

Vince Lepore who is one of the more seasoned and respected posters since the puberty days of these forums replied with sensbile rebuttals to the wisdom of the "move". Granted that the merits/de-merits of limping with those aces could be an endless debate, I am wondering: how many, or who among the more successful bigger buy-in MTT players in these forum, if they were in Sklansky's place in the heat of battle in a tough table would have defied the more conventional wisdom of raising here?

I also find it ironic that DS titled it "strange play" and yet called it a "routine variation". /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[schwza]

i personally was much more baffled by the flop fold than the limp. i wouldn't limp, but i could see value in it in terms of limpRR, deception, etc.

the flop fold just seemed (seems) flat wrong.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I really don't care what was the best play. Sklansky is probably the best to know since he knows the other players best. What annoyed me was that he made the post to defend his own play, it was never made for discussion.

He must have some ego problem.

Here in MTT-forum players are much more searching, much more to my taste.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
the flop fold just seemed (seems) flat wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so you limp, the flop is Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif and JH bets into 6 people. 3 folds, 2 behind you, and you...

Call: How many turns do you like? A non-diamond 4, because it counterfeits QT and it's unlikely she has any other 2 pair - probably. The A /images/graemlins/heart.gif...probably, unless she has KJd. Anything else and you're either still far behind or she has 20 billion outs; you don't know which one. The absolute worst thing she could have is a lone Q, but she won't play a big pot with that.

Raise: She probably 3 bets or pushes at least the top half of her hands. Some of them are coinflips and some aren't. You've already lost 1K-1500 in the process. Now what?

[Sam T.]

I think DS omitted a lot of information from the hand, in no small part to encourage discussion. He added the following a bit later:

[ QUOTE ]
1. A raise above 200 was unlikely to get called

2. Late position players were raising limpers fairly often.

3. There was a decent chance of picking up a few grand preflop without having to see a flop. Almost no chance of this if I was the first raiser.

4. A set of aces, perhaps even made on the turn or the river would get more action due to my limping than if I raised preflop


[/ QUOTE ]

He also notes that this is a standard variation. He is up against people who have a binder full of notes on how he plays AA, and needs to mix it up.

So the way he is playing the hand is intended to:
-lose the minimum and win the maximum.
-Make life harder for the rest table if he ends up showing down. ("Okay, David limped after two other limpers. I guess I can put him on...well, something between 76s or AA.")

Are this good poker in a tournament with t1500 starting chips and 15 minute blinds? No, probably not. You don't have time for this, and nobody will remember your play anyway. But in a multi-day tournament with huge stacks? People who are a lot better than I am seem to think it's the right play.

Sam

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Call: How many turns do you like? A non-diamond 4, because it counterfeits QT and it's unlikely she has any other 2 pair - probably. The A ...probably, unless she has KJd. Anything else and you're either still far behind or she has 20 billion outs; you don't know which one. The absolute worst thing she could have is a lone Q, but she won't play a big pot with that.


[/ QUOTE ]

how about the 2/images/graemlins/club.gif? the 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif? blanks are not too threatening, as i'm ahead of everything but QT, 44, and maybe TT right now.

[ QUOTE ]
The absolute worst thing she could have is a lone Q, but she won't play a big pot with that.


[/ QUOTE ]

right, she would fold to my raise. i don't want to play a big pot either. my line would be to raise the flop, check behind on the turn, and call a bet on the river. if she 3bets the flop, dump it. if she calls and leads the turn, it's a tough decision but it's likely a fold.

i feel like the argument that you're making would apply if i had raised and she had 3-bet or led the turn. but she has thus far committed 4% of her chips on the flop - there isn't any indication she wants to play a big pot.

[ QUOTE ]
Anything else and you're either still far behind or she has 20 billion outs

[/ QUOTE ]

if she has, say, the A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif x/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, she has 9. KJ = 6. J9 = 8. it's much more likely that she has a standard draw than some sort of combination draw. if she believes that she can fold out AA, then the odds that a semi-bluff will be successful are actually quite high, and we can expect her to semi-bluff frequently.

[ QUOTE ]
Raise: She probably 3 bets or pushes at least the top half of her hands. Some of them are coinflips and some aren't. You've already lost 1K-1500 in the process. Now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

do you think you'd be so confident of getting reraised if hero held 44 instead of AA here? if i said "i think JH would be pretty likely to 3-bet or push with a hand like J9 and i can move in with my set" do you think people would agree?

so what hands would you not fold here? AA is out, so presumably AQ is out as well (right?) if you somehow got to the flop with T4, you're not going to fold that, are you? you've got to muck all non-nut flush draws that don't have a straight draw, right? KJ has only 6 outs to the nuts, so that's a fold. J9 only has 3. how do you avoid getting run over if you're going to fold this many hands?

[adanthar]

This whole post is uncharted territory because I'd never play most of those hands that way.

But here's what I think: She probably doesn't lead into 6 people with 2 Broadway cards on board with only a flush draw. You have to consider her hand, whatever it is, is even more difficult to play than DS's unless she's got some combo draw or thinks she's a near lock. If she leads with the Ax /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and gets raised, she's got to call in this biggish pot and then probably dump the turn over 80% of the time for a decent fraction of her stack, so the play here is probably to check/call a decent bet. Since she's leading out instead, I think if she has a flush draw with the ace the second card has got to be the 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif (or maybe the J for an added gutshot, but that's as bad as it probably gets.) The same applies to straight draws; she's not betting them out into 6 people to make the pot that big.

So what I put her on is a combo draw, QT/Q4s/T4s, or 44, but probably some 2 pair/combo hand.

Given that, having for some freak reason limped AQ when a 250 raise would have taken it down PF, I'd fold it. KJ and J9 are calls because I'm getting paid off immediately on the turn when I hit (and a K doesn't worry me much with J9.) Flush draws depend on how likely I am to figure out if a flush is good from her betting pattern later.

Of course, if I have 44, I'm raising and hoping she's got enough of a hand to 3 bet, and I don't expect to be disappointed too often. She's showing far too much strength for this to be just a 9 outer.

[number5858]

I think a key thing to consider is what do we know about Jennifer's style of play? I don't know anything about it. Is she conservative? Aggressive? Super-aggressive?

MLG also pointed out that I forgot the limpers, so I typically add 1-2 BB per limper on top of my 2-5 BB raise.

[HiatusOver]

I just really dont understand this flop play...I think Harmon makes this bet with top pair often. I know Negreneau has no fear about betting 60 percent of the pot with top pair weak kicker in this spot

[Greeksquared]

[ QUOTE ]


Hero takes JHs seat. Hero looks at flop. Hero would not even need to look at his own cards (just pretend to do it. Heknows his poker-mathematics and knows that out of 49 cards there are 2,352 combinations.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't 2352 combinations. First off, if you see the flop there are only 47 unseen cards. So there are 47c2 (47 choose 2) cards that remain that can determine an opponent's hand.

This is 47!/45!2! = 47*46/2 = 1081 combinations.

You are double counting when you do 49*48.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
I just really dont understand this flop play...I think Harmon makes this bet with top pair often. I know Negreneau has no fear about betting 60 percent of the pot with top pair weak kicker in this spot

[/ QUOTE ]

My best guess is JH has a hand that welcomes action here, and she's leading hoping to get a chance to reraise. OOP against 5-6 opponents with a scary, draw heavy board is not what I would call a good situation to lead with a marginal hand. Nut flush draw and pair, two pair, straight and flush draw, or set is what I would guess shes on. Maybe TPTK if here kicker was the ace of diamonds.

I certainly do not think she bets top pair weak kicker here.

[CieloAzor]

There aren't many hands beating AA and I definitely don't think Harman needs one of them to bet. She's a very aggressive player and the board is full of draws. I take a card off and bet/raise the turn to price out her draw. If she's ahead at that point, she'll let me know. Maybe she misses her flush draw or maybe the flush hits and scares her pair/straight draw combo.

Bottom line, you have position on her and you expect to have the best hand on the flop. It's a ridiculous time to fold.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
what i don't get is: [ QUOTE ]
If you raise with AA here you had better raise with a lot of hands or you pummel yourself with reverse implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

He's just referring to a general concept on super deep money. You don't want to give your hand away early against tough opponents.

[ QUOTE ]
but my bigger issue is the fold on the flop. you've got to be ahead of harmon the vast majority of the time. there are only two limpers left to act behind you. why not make it 1k and play from there? you can check behind on the turn if you're worried about keeping the pot small.

i think harmon raises QQ and maybe TT, so we're only behind 44 and QT. why fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reverse implied odds /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don't like the raise as Harman is showing strength. Someone from a large field is likely to hit that flop, and given she knows this and is betting from the worst position, she is the prime candidate. We are likely either buried or close, and only have AQ, KQ buried. A raise will get no better hands to fold or any action from worse hands, and we still have 2 players from a large field to act. They could easily have flopped something, so if we have harman beat, we may still be beat behind us. A raise is just making it easy for our opponents to play correctly, and ensuring they win a lot when they have us beat.

I think the choice between calling and folding is close though. I would personally call, as I think we still have a good chance of being best, and also feel a call makes it easy for us to play the turn in general. But I'm a fish, so I'd go with Sklansky and Phillips answer. Maybe the 2 ops still to act behind do make the difference in this decision. Or maybe Harman betting big all the way to the river with both big hands and big draws make it a fold on the flop. Given she also probably bets the turn with the top pair headsup, a fold on the flop probably is best. I guess I am a fish for calling.

[fnord_too]

I wasn't saying the aces were behind, (but I think at best they are a coin flip, as an aside); what I was saying was that I dont think JH would be betting something like TPWK here. I would not feel good with aces here, though. This is an action flop and a good player is leading into a large limping field. (This is the type of flop that hits limpers, two low suited broadway cards).

Really, what type of hand do you need to lead out here from the sb into 5 limpers and the BB? There is a good chance this flop hit one of them and you are going to be raised or at least called. I think you need a very strong draw (like 15 outer)or two pair (or again, maybe A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifQo) to lead here. I think a weaker hand would check and raise or fold depending on where the bet came from and what anyone in between did. Leading here if you are not prepared to commit more chips here just seems very bad since I don't think it will be folded around more than about 1/3 of the time if you don't have a strong hand (if you do, then it will be folded more since you are killing two valuable cards. If one of them is the A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif you are killing the crucial card).

I guess a really ballsy player could bluff with the naked ace of diamonds. I don't think I could though in that spot.