Limit player tries out NL (AKo in the SB-lots of limpers)

[zephed56]

I had about $70 left in my PokerRoom account after cashing out, and this money sort of feels like screw around money (I won't get upset if I lose it, I know weird), so I decided I might as well give NL a shot. In a couple of days I've somehow managed to make it a couple hundred, go figure.

I really think I suck at NL. I feel very uncomfortable being raised, especially on the river. I hate folding on the river, I guess limit strategy is ingrained in my head. So one of my leaks is probably calling too much on the end when raised.

Here's a big (pot) hand, please scrutinize any poor plays.

1: MP2 ($51.50 in chips) <font color="blue">loose preflop, don't know much else.</font>
2: MP3 ($5.50 in chips) <font color="blue">58%vpip, not aggressive at all</font>
3: CO ($26.85 in chips)
4: Button ($24.15 in chips) <font color="blue">loose</font>
5: Hero ($14.70 in chips) <font color="blue">I know, no excuse... /images/graemlins/frown.gif</font>
7: BB ($40.70 in chips)
8: UTG ($7.35 in chips)
9: UTG+1 ($8.50 in chips)
10: MP1 ($23.20 in chips)

Apparently, I need to work on reads too.

<font color="green">
PokerRoom $25 NL (10 handed) ---- SB = $.10, BB = $.25

Hero is dealt A/images/graemlins/heart.gif K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif in the SB

PRE-FLOP:
1 fold, UTG+1 calls $0.25, 1 fold, MP2 calls $0.25, MP3 calls $0.25, 1 fold, Button calls $0.25, <font color="red">Hero raises $2</font>, 2 folds, MP2 calls $1.85, MP3 calls $1.85, 1 fold.

FLOP: <font color="blue">($6.80 pot)</font> K/images/graemlins/club.gif 6/images/graemlins/club.gif 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif
<font color="red">Hero bets $4</font>, MP2 calls $4, MP3 folds.

TURN: <font color="blue">($14.80 pot)</font> 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif
<font color="red">Hero bets $8.60 and is all-in</font>, MP2 calls $8.60.

RIVER: <font color="blue">($32 pot)</font> 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif
</font>

[zephed56]

I suck at life.

[kurto]

You're short stacked... your raised hoping to hit a board like this... You went with it. Looks good to me.

[beset7]

Look standard to me. Was there a specific part of the hand that troubled you? you raised roughly 3xBB + 1xBB for each limper. You led out on the flop and then pushed. Looks good.

Oh and you already know this but there is no reason to be short-stacked here. It ain't a tournament /images/graemlins/grin.gif just rebuy.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh and you already know this but there is no reason to be short-stacked here.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is a very good idea for someone who is new to NL to buy in short. It will greatly cut down on the cost of calling bets or raises on the river.

You should buy in for the maximum when you have a significant skill advantage and you know how to play with a deep stack.

[kurto]

"It is a very good idea for someone who is new to NL to buy in short. It will greatly cut down on the cost of calling bets or raises on the river." I don't agree. I think if they have bankroll issues... goto Pokerstars and play the $10 NL table.

I think playing with a full stack is more relevent to learn. (If they win, they're going to have a full stack anyways, and then they'll have to know how to play it.)

Furthermore... coming from limit, I'm sure this guys going to want to play SC and the like... which only makes sense if you're playing w deep stacks.

[jdaddy]

I like your play the whole way and wouldn't change a thing. I think both stack arguments are valid. Having not read your "bio" I would say that being short stacked is always a disadvantage. However, in your case, ie "the fear" you may actually be better off short stacked until you are comfortable. Regardless of stack size, you are not going to be effective until you are quazi comfortable being raised. Having said that, I do not believe that your play in this hand shows any evidence of no limit fear.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is a very good idea for someone who is new to NL to buy in short. It will greatly cut down on the cost of calling bets or raises on the river.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't agree. I think if they have bankroll issues... goto Pokerstars and play the $10 NL table.

[/ QUOTE ]
A bankroll absorbs the swings of a winning player. That is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about the difference between being a winning player and being a loser.

Someone who is used to winning at limit is likely to win with a short stack, and to lose with a deep stack. You just don't have to make the distinctions in hand strengths in limit that are important with deep stacks. You don't have to deal with or make large bluffs on the river. You don't have massive implied odds.

[ QUOTE ]

I think playing with a full stack is more relevent to learn. (If they win, they're going to have a full stack anyways, and then they'll have to know how to play it.)

[/ QUOTE ]
There is still a lot to learn with a short stack, and there is the advantage that you see more hands at showdown. That makes it much easier to figure out what your opponents are doing if they are beating you.

[akishore]

you played this completely fine.

alternately, you might have check-raised on the flop or turn, specifically the turn since it's heads-up and the bottom card pairs. by checking there, you seem weak, so you can get good value if he attempts a bluff (or value bet sensing weakness) and you check-raise him.

otherwise, completely fine considering your short stack. nice job.

aseem

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh and you already know this but there is no reason to be short-stacked here.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is a very good idea for someone who is new to NL to buy in short. It will greatly cut down on the cost of calling bets or raises on the river.

You should buy in for the maximum when you have a significant skill advantage and you know how to play with a deep stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Playing the short-stack does cut down on your opponents skill advantage over you; but how do you learn how to play 100xbb+ stacks without doing it? Sure, higher variance but variance goes both ways (i.e. profit).

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is a very good idea for someone who is new to NL to buy in short. It will greatly cut down on the cost of calling bets or raises on the river.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Playing the short-stack does cut down on your opponents skill advantage over you; but how do you learn how to play 100xbb+ stacks without doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I recommend learning to swim in a pool or lake rather than learning to swim in a river or ocean. Once you know how to swim with no current or waves, it is easier to adapt to more challenging environments.

I think it is common for limit players to find they win small pots and lose big pots, in part because they call too much with mediocre hands while their opponent is screaming strength. Buying in for 30 BB will prevent a new player from getting crushed by these infrequent but catastrophic mistakes.

[zephed56]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is a very good idea for someone who is new to NL to buy in short. It will greatly cut down on the cost of calling bets or raises on the river.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Playing the short-stack does cut down on your opponents skill advantage over you; but how do you learn how to play 100xbb+ stacks without doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I recommend learning to swim in a pool or lake rather than learning to swim in a river or ocean. Once you know how to swim with no current or waves, it is easier to adapt to more challenging environments.

I think it is common for limit players to find they win small pots and lose big pots, in part because they call too much with mediocre hands while their opponent is screaming strength. Buying in for 30 BB will prevent a new player from getting crushed by these infrequent but catastrophic mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do this. I'm trying not to, but it's sooo hard. I've got to see it! &lt;*(((&gt;&lt;|

[kurto]

"I think it is common for limit players to find they win small pots and lose big pots, in part because they call too much with mediocre hands while their opponent is screaming strength." True.. because in limit, you only have to call another bet. But I might still argue, the first they need to do is... stop doing that. They shouldn't be going to showdown as much.

I have no problem with learning to play a short stack. But then they need to learn they have to tighten up even more... which, I suspect, is a harder lesson to learn if you come from limit.

[zephed56]

[ QUOTE ]
Look standard to me. Was there a specific part of the hand that troubled you? you raised roughly 3xBB + 1xBB for each limper. You led out on the flop and then pushed. Looks good.

Oh and you already know this but there is no reason to be short-stacked here. It ain't a tournament /images/graemlins/grin.gif just rebuy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should I be betting more on the flop?

Or slightly less on the flop waiting for a non-club turn to make a pot size bet? Or was the flop bet fine, and a big turn bet goodererer?

[xorbie]

I'm going to suggest a possible alternative play. The way you did it is ok, although I would bet the flop for the full pot.

What I would do here is try to trap. Both of these guys are loose preflop, and MP3 is basically a douchebag. This sounds like a perfect time to try to let MP2 buy the pot with his KQ/KJ (or just random crap) sensing weakness when you check to him. Then let MP3 call with middle pair (becuase he's a douche), then raise all in.

If it gets checked through and the turn is a brick, bet. If the turn is another club, bet, but fold to a re-raise all in. If the turn pairs the board (but not the K), bet and fold to a re-raise all in.

This play only works if you are pretty sure that MP2 is going to bet out though, so barring that sort of read I would just raise the flop more.

[zephed56]

Villain calls my all in with A/images/graemlins/club.gif X/images/graemlins/club.gif and fails to catch his flush draw on the river. I win a big pot which would have been bigger if I had bought in for the full amount. I learned my lesson.