5-5 NL at Foxwoods - very deepstacks

[LuvDemNutz]

I was up at Foxwoods for the weekend and decided to try out the 5-5NL game there.
I bought in for the minimun ($500) and ran it up to $1K when this hand came up. With $1K I was still the shortstack at the table. Stack sizes ranged from $1K to $12K.

No real read on Villian in this hand as he just sat down. I did see him show down T7o in a recent hand. So basically he could be playing any 2. But with stacks this deep, that is to be expected anyway I guess.

I pick up TdTc in MP and limp. 3 other limpers.

Flop ($30) - Th 7d 5c

Checked to me, I bet $30, Villain on my immediately left calls, everyone folds.

Turn 4d - I bet $70, Villain raises to $900.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[JihadOnTheRiver]

This is not even questionable. You are short stcacked and they're probably very aware of that, and they probably took your min buyin as fear, so they're gonna be trying to push you around. You have to call. If he has a straight, so be it.

[thabadguy]

Raise Preflop(TT is def a raising hand in that game).
Insta call.
If he shows u the straight,laugh and say nh.
Is this a serious post? or am i being taken?

[XXXNoahXXX]

Even questioning a call here means that you're probably playing too high above your limit/bankroll. When you get in for the minimum, people are going to assume that you are wary of losing it and will try to bully. If he turns over the straight, at least you got the river to try and fill up.

[flawless_victory]

these stacks are not that deep...
raise PF.
call turn.
you make sound so brutal when you say he raised to 900... why dont you just he raised allin?
raise PF.

[slickpoppa]

You gotta call. At this point, if he does have the 68, there is still no reason for him to think that you have a hand that is worth calling 900 with. And if he does have a straight, you have 10 outs.

[sully4321]

i'm assuming you folded and he mucked it...

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
these stacks are not that deep...


[/ QUOTE ]

If 200BB - 2400BB stacks are not deep stacks than what are?

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
these stacks are not that deep...


[/ QUOTE ]

If 200BB - 2400BB stacks are not deep stacks than what are?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since your stack is only 200bb, for the discussion of this hand it does not matter whether the other guy has 201bb or 2400bb. Deep stacks only matter if your stack is deep as well.

[neon]

[ QUOTE ]
I was up at Foxwoods for the weekend and decided to try out the 5-5NL game there.
I bought in for the minimun ($500) and ran it up to $1K when this hand came up. With $1K I was still the shortstack at the table. Stack sizes ranged from $1K to $12K.

No real read on Villian in this hand as he just sat down. I did see him show down T7o in a recent hand. So basically he could be playing any 2. But with stacks this deep, that is to be expected anyway I guess.

I pick up TdTc in MP and limp. 3 other limpers.

Flop ($30) - Th 7d 5c

Checked to me, I bet $30, Villain on my immediately left calls, everyone folds.

Turn 4d - I bet $70, Villain raises to $900.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're gonna buy in for the minimum in that game and sit there as the short stack at the table, you'd better be prepared to put your stack in the middle with a whole lot less than top set. The big stacks in that game prey on the smaller stacks that aren't willing to get it all in w/ less than the nuts.

If this was the time he has the straight, it sucks, but oh well; you're still drawing live. And definitely raise 1010 preflop--you may be the short stack, but you still have 200 big blinds in front of you . . .

[Post-Oak]

Are you sure he should raise with TT preflop? I heard there are players in that game who will reraise a tight UTG raiser with 49s.

Seriously, TT is not a "definite" raise. In fact, the advice you people are giving him is not logically consistent.

You are basically saying:
1. you need to raise PF with TT to start building a pot
2. people will raise you all-in for many times the pot with semi-bluffs or pure air

Maybe you guys should think about this a little longer.

Furthermore, folding is not ridiculous here, depending on his read of this specific player. The guy is afterall putting in a huge raise compared to the pot.

I agree with you that he should call, but you guys have still given some bad and inconsistent advice/reasoning.

[thabadguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure he should raise with TT preflop? I heard there are players in that game who will reraise a tight UTG raiser with 49s.

Seriously, TT is not a "definite" raise. In fact, the advice you people are giving him is not logically consistent.

You are basically saying:
1. you need to raise PF with TT to start building a pot
2. people will raise you all-in for many times the pot with semi-bluffs or pure air

Maybe you guys should think about this a little longer.

Furthermore, folding is not ridiculous here, depending on his read of this specific player. The guy is afterall putting in a huge raise compared to the pot.

I agree with you that he should call, but you guys have still given some bad and inconsistent advice/reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since he will get semi-bluff raised or even air, isnt that more of a reason to raise TT pf, this hand is a significant fave against a LAG's range of hands.
Please Sit at my game if u fold here with top set!!

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Since he will get semi-bluff raised or even air, isnt that more of a reason to raise TT pf

[/ QUOTE ]

Uumm, no.

[ QUOTE ]

this hand is a significant fave against a LAG's range of hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are guys in the small stakes forum who will be happy to discuss this kind of thinking with you.

[thabadguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since he will get semi-bluff raised or even air, isnt that more of a reason to raise TT pf

[/ QUOTE ]

Uumm, no.

[ QUOTE ]

this hand is a significant fave against a LAG's range of hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are guys in the small stakes forum who will be happy to discuss this kind of thinking with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand this post at all. Kindly elaborate on your thinking.

[Hoopster81]

Does anyone really not instantly call here?

[radioheadfan]

I'm amazed these sorts of posts get as many replies as they do.

This is an insta-call in the Foxwoods 5-5, with only 1000 behind. Make it 10,000 and then maybe there can be some discussion.

[TomCollins]

Don't raise preflop.

I expect to see a smaller set way more often than the straight. I also expect to see a flush draw/pair combo more often too.

Call, and yell "pair the board". Simple as that. Then yell "seat open", as you either busted, or you have way too much money for your comfort level at the game.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
I was up at Foxwoods for the weekend and decided to try out the 5-5NL game there.
I bought in for the minimun ($500) and ran it up to $1K when this hand came up. With $1K I was still the shortstack at the table. Stack sizes ranged from $1K to $12K.

No real read on Villian in this hand as he just sat down. I did see him show down T7o in a recent hand. So basically he could be playing any 2. But with stacks this deep, that is to be expected anyway I guess.

I pick up TdTc in MP and limp. 3 other limpers.

Flop ($30) - Th 7d 5c

Checked to me, I bet $30, Villain on my immediately left calls, everyone folds.

Turn 4d - I bet $70, Villain raises to $900.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero calls.

Hero wins.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone really not instantly call here?

[/ QUOTE ]

[neon]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure he should raise with TT preflop? I heard there are players in that game who will reraise a tight UTG raiser with 49s.

Seriously, TT is not a "definite" raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would advocate open-limping in MP w/ 1010? And only raising w/ AA-JJ and AK? Hero may be the shallow stack, but he's still got plenty of room to manuever w/ 200 bb's in front of him. I think not raising here is incredibly weak-tight, and makes for all kinds of uncomfortable situations when the flop comes 8-high, for example, and gives us what amounts to a marginal overpair, which will often be the best hand but that we probably won't feel comfortable playing for our stack with . . .

[ QUOTE ]
You are basically saying:
1. you need to raise PF with TT to start building a pot
2. people will raise you all-in for many times the pot with semi-bluffs or pure air

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing out on some serious value by not raising here. I'm not trying to be a dick, but have you ever played in this game? 'Cause if you're only raising w/ five hands in this game, you're gonna get slaughtered.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, folding is not ridiculous here, depending on his read of this specific player. The guy is afterall putting in a huge raise compared to the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're right, folding is not ridiculous, especially since it's an unraised pot, and villain very well could have the straight. Yet he could also have a smaller set, two pair, a pair and a flush draw, or a straight draw/flush draw combination. He could also have absolutely nothing. The point is, by buying in for the minimum in this game, where people are routinely sitting down w/ 1000 BBs+++, you might as well hang a sign around your neck that says, "weak-tight nut peddler: raise me at will." If I'm sitting there in that game w/ only a grand in front of me, I feel pretty good about getting my stack in with top set here, and if I lose, then so be it.

And one more thing: if OP had popped it up to $35/$40 or so preflop (standard open for the foxwoods 5-5 game), then the straight would be at least somewhat less of a concern, and hero's hand becomes a bit easier to play, imo.

Just my opinion though, of course.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
Even questioning a call here means that you're probably playing too high above your limit/bankroll. When you get in for the minimum, people are going to assume that you are wary of losing it and will try to bully. If he turns over the straight, at least you got the river to try and fill up.

[/ QUOTE ]

To correct you -

1) I posted this hand because I am questioning how I played the hand as a whole (i.e. not raising preflop) and to get the thought process of other posters when deciding how to play this hand in this game.

2) I am also questioning a call here because Villain has bet $900 into a $160 pot.

3) If you re-read my post you will notice that Villian has no idea how much I bought in for as he just recently sat down. All he knows is that I have $1K in front of me. For all he knows I bought in for $3K and have lost $2K.

[thabadguy]

The following advice is based on what i have seen about the avg play at the FW game, and only the FW game.
1)Raise pf.
2)The reason he fired that bet into you on the turn is because of limp preflop, the villain is not putting you on TT here at all..almost always he is doing this with nothing and trying to take it away.
I would raise preflop..overbet flop, either pot/cr all in on turn.
With 1k here its a nobrainer about getting ur stack in here.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, by buying in for the minimum in this game, where people are routinely sitting down w/ 1000 BBs+++, you might as well hang a sign around your neck that says, "weak-tight nut peddler: raise me at will."

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that I can't use that to my advantage?

I did in an earlier hand which is how I doubled up.

I raised to 30 with AKo.

Got 2 callers behind me - flop KK9.

I make a continuation bet of $70, get one caller.

Turn T.

I check, Villain checks.

River 8 - I check Villain bets 250, I CR all in and double up.

I fully expect these guys to try and push me around. A lot of people would criticize me for checking the turn and river but wearing the "weak-tight" nut-peddler sign around my neck I thought it was the best way to get my money in the middle.

I was right.

So do you think that hand made it more or less-likey that they would try to bully me later on?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was up at Foxwoods for the weekend and decided to try out the 5-5NL game there.
I bought in for the minimun ($500) and ran it up to $1K when this hand came up. With $1K I was still the shortstack at the table. Stack sizes ranged from $1K to $12K.

No real read on Villian in this hand as he just sat down. I did see him show down T7o in a recent hand. So basically he could be playing any 2. But with stacks this deep, that is to be expected anyway I guess.

I pick up TdTc in MP and limp. 3 other limpers.

Flop ($30) - Th 7d 5c

Checked to me, I bet $30, Villain on my immediately left calls, everyone folds.

Turn 4d - I bet $70, Villain raises to $900.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero calls.

Hero wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero calls.

Villain has 76o.

River 8.

Hero loses.

[LuvDemNutz]

Does your answer change if the turn is the 4s, completing the rainbow?

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]

So you would advocate open-limping in MP w/ 1010?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Mix it up (especially when you are opening), but mostly I would limp with TT here. The reason is that you have described the game as people way overbetting their hands (not to mention the pot).

[ QUOTE ]

And only raising w/ AA-JJ and AK?


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say "only", because you have to mix it up. Sometimes I would raise with 67s, but barely ever in this game (which sounds like a fish pond). Sometimes I would limp with JJ or even QQ. I mean, there are people raising more than twice the pot with nothing, remember?

[ QUOTE ]

Hero may be the shallow stack, but he's still got plenty of room to manuever w/ 200 bb's in front of him.


[/ QUOTE ]

You would think so. This would be the case in a normal game; however, you have described this game as being full of LAG fish who routinely over bet/raise the pot by massive margins, even when they are up against weak-tight nut peddlers.

[ QUOTE ]

I think not raising here is incredibly weak-tight,


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to adapt your strategy to differing game conditions. If that means playing like a weak-tight nut peddler, then so be it. Some games you should play tighter than normal (and vice versa). This is one of them.

[ QUOTE ]

and makes for all kinds of uncomfortable situations when the flop comes 8-high, for example, and gives us what amounts to a marginal overpair, which will often be the best hand but that we probably won't feel comfortable playing for our stack with . . .


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, playing for your stack with a marginal hand is not good. We both agree there is no need to do that. Imagine if (gasp) a real fluke occurred and an OVERCARD to your precious TT hit.


[ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing out on some serious value by not raising here. I'm not trying to be a dick, but have you ever played in this game? 'Cause if you're only raising w/ five hands in this game, you're gonna get slaughtered.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're not being a dick at all. Explain to me how I would get slaughtered. Even if I took it to the extreme and only set mined, apparantely there are LAG fish who will raise me when I finally come out betting the flop. They won't run
me off of any strong hands. They can keep the $5 blinds if they want them. What I want is for them to make one of their intimidating 2X pot raises when I finally come alive. Can they really be that clueless (again, this is how the game has been described in response to OP's post).

[ QUOTE ]

You're right, folding is not ridiculous, especially since it's an unraised pot, and villain very well could have the straight.


[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like these guys call raises with garbage too.

[ QUOTE ]

Yet he could also have a smaller set, two pair, a pair and a flush draw, or a straight draw/flush draw combination. He could also have absolutely nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

So why is it wrong to set mine in this game?

[ QUOTE ]

The point is, by buying in for the minimum in this game, where people are routinely sitting down w/ 1000 BBs+++, you might as well hang a sign around your neck that says, "weak-tight nut peddler: raise me at will."


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this makes no sense. I WANT them to raise my bets (or should I just say "sets"). Nut peddlers love LAG fish who think the proper thing to do is aggressively raise a nut peddler who is sitting with a short stack.

[ QUOTE ]

If I'm sitting there in that game w/ only a grand in front of me, I feel pretty good about getting my stack in with top set here, and if I lose, then so be it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]

And one more thing: if OP had popped it up to $35/$40 or so preflop (standard open for the foxwoods 5-5 game), then the straight would be at least somewhat less of a concern, and hero's hand becomes a bit easier to play, imo.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the standard open is 8X the BB, then I would advocate playing very tightly preflop.

Is hero looking to double through or play easy hands? My main source of confusion is this; you describe the hero as probably being way ahead, but you want him to make the hand "easier" to play.

What can be easier than set mining in this game? It really sounds like a great place to buy in for $800 or so and double through the LAGs who are playing very deep stack no limit with each other. From all the descriptions we have read, they just love to put the "short" stacks all-in with all kinds of holdings. Sign me up...

Just to return to one of my earlier points...

How do you reconcile these two ideas (both of which you seem to espouse, if I am not mistaken):
1. you need to raise PF with TT to start building a pot
2. people will raise you all-in for many times the pot
with semi-bluffs or pure air

Is it because you think LAGs playing with 1000BBs will fold to a MP opener who routinely raises all kinds of hands? They may all fold if they have nothing and you are the only one in the pot with them. I rather play the TT for set value against these hyper aggressive fish, rather than take their blinds. The reason I am calling them "fish" is because that is how they are being described.

[LuvDemNutz]

Frankly, I am disappointed with most of the responses in this thread. I think Post-Oak, neon and Thabadguy are the only ones that had anything remotely worthwhile to say at all.

I think that those of you (and this is most of you) that are arguing that this is an “insanely” easy call, are idiots.

Rounding off a bit – I have to call $900 to win $1100. So I am getting about 1.22 to 1 on my money.

1/1.22 = .82 – so for this to be a “correct” call in the long run, I need to be ahead about 82% of the time. Now, of course if I am behind I will catch up about 25% of the time so, that 82% is reduced to about 60%. But there are also the times where Villain is semi-bluffing, I AM ahead but HE catches up and I lose. But anyway, to be conservative let’s just stick with 60%.

No one has really bothered to put my opponent on a hand. To me it is pretty simple – either he has the nuts or is semi-bluffing with a pair + diamond draw or 8d9d.

I would be really, really, really surprised to see 44 or 77 here. I cannot think of a single time I have seen someone play a set like that. Smooth-call flop, massive overbet on the turn just seems like a completely moronic way to build a pot with a set. Also, what possible two-pair hands could he have? T5, T4 are not likely for obvious reasons and 75 likely raises the flop. Also, is Villain making a $900 turn bet with any of these?

Remember also, that the only read I have on my opponent is that he limped with T7o. So, I know that he is loose – but I know nothing about his aggression.

So with that as my ONLY real read, do you all really think I am ahead here more than 60% of the time?

Against a “loose” unknown what is more likely?

a) He smooth calls the flop with an OESD and makes a massive overbet with the nuts on the turn (possibly playing with scared money and not wanting to be out-drawn himself), OR
b) He calls the flop with 8d9d, or pair + backdoor flush and makes a $900 semi-bluff into a $160 pot?

I am curious – how many of you routinely make huge semi-bluffs like this?

Thabadguy – I know you’d love to have me in your game because I’d even contemplate a fold here but if you were the Villain in this hand, given that I know you are LAG (the “AG” being the important part) of course I am much more likely to call. But against someone who I only know to be loose, I think it’s a different story entirely.

This game is about the RELATIVE strength of hands and what odds you are getting on your money.

----------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, in the actual hand there was just no way I could make myself fold. I called, Villain showed 86o for the nuts. The river didn’t pair the board.

As far as not raising pre-flop goes, I didn’t raise for many of the reasons Post-Oak cites in his post. For one, I was “mixing it up”. Secondly, with stacks this deep, I didn’t think raising to $30-$35 would do much to “narrow” the field.
It is hard to say if this particular hand would’ve played any different had I raised. I do think that whether or not to raise with TT in these game conditions makes for interesting discussion.

[HiatusOver]

WOW u called a bunch of people idiots and then displayed your idiocy by completely screwing up the numbers. And I mean COMPLETELY

U Said
>>>>>>""Frankly, I am disappointed with most of the responses in this thread. I think Post-Oak, neon and Thabadguy are the only ones that had anything remotely worthwhile to say at all.

I think that those of you (and this is most of you) that are arguing that this is an “insanely” easy call, are idiots.

Rounding off a bit – I have to call $900 to win $1100. So I am getting about 1.22 to 1 on my money.

1/1.22 = .82 – so for this to be a “correct” call in the long run, I need to be ahead about 82% of the time. Now, of course if I am behind I will catch up about 25% of the time so, that 82% is reduced to about 60%. But there are also the times where Villain is semi-bluffing, I AM ahead but HE catches up and I lose. But anyway, to be conservative let’s just stick with 60%. ""<<<<<<


U realize when u have to call 900 to win 1100 u have to be right LESS THAN 50 PERCENT of the time...NOT 82 percent!!Actually a lot less than 50 then with the board pairing it is less than 40 I think. Anyways, thought this was pretty funny. Be careful when u call people idiots.

[Rabid_Hippo]

I'm thinking that Villain has put you on the flush draw and is betting $900 to destroy your odds and get you to lay down.

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
Villain showed 86o for the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tough.

He lucked out because you had basically the only hand that would consider calling that bet. Most of the time someone who takes your line has AT/KT etc.

I think it was Aggie who said:

If you have 100 BB
Get it in when you hit your sets

If I have 200 BB, I am definately trying to get it in if I have top set.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]

U realize when u have to call 900 to win 1100 u have to be right LESS THAN 50 PERCENT of the time...NOT 82 percent!!Actually a lot less than 50 then with the board pairing it is less than 40 I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, my bad. But still, factoring in that he catches up some of the time when he is behind the real question is am I ahead here better than say, 45% of the time (ok so that is less than 60%).

Given that, I am mildly frustrated by those suggesting that this is an "easy" call or that I must be playing over my head because I even considered folding.

Bottom line - my intuition was right, my number crunching - not so right.

[runnerunner]

I don't necessarily think that raising preflop 100% of the time here is correct. I often will limp or call with TT from middle position, but a big benefit of raising is that it weeds out the 86o's of the world and makes it easier to put your opponent on a hand when he makes a 180bb turn bet.

The reason why most posters were saying this is an instacall is because of the way you portrayed the villian as a LAG. You softened your description of him a lot in the results. You played the hand well. There is no way you could fold here without an unbelievable read.

[Niwa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone really not instantly call here?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that those of you (and this is most of you) that are arguing that this is an “insanely” easy call, are idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add me to the list of idiots. This is an insanely easy auto-call.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]

I am curious – how many of you routinely make huge semi-bluffs like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, all the time against small stacks who are so afraid that they seriously consider doing things like laying down top set in a spot like this.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
1/1.22 = .82 – so for this to be a “correct” call in the long run, I need to be ahead about 82% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even without taking suckouts into account, this logic is very incorrect.

In the Foxwoods $5,5 game against one of the, even moderately aggressive, big stacks this really is an instant call every time, if you have been playing tight poker. These players simply can not stop themselves from trying to bluff tight players with small stacks off of made hands. It is like a disease. There are players in that game who are willing to give up massive edges (those times they are called) to make bluffs in this sort of spot. I am not at all sure that I would have any edge at all against some of these players if it wasn’t for this one leak. It is as if they can not believe that a player who buys in for 200BB and doesn’t see many flops actually wants to put it all into the middle when a good situation comes up. Too bad you ran into the nuts this time but I really don’t think you should let it stop you from taking that bet the next time it comes up in that game.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am curious – how many of you routinely make huge semi-bluffs like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, all the time against small stacks who are so afraid that they seriously consider doing things like laying down top set in a spot like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[esbesb]

Push your stack in the middle.

[Wayfare]

"Rounding off a bit – I have to call $900 to win $1100. So I am getting about 1.22 to 1 on my money.

1/1.22 = .82 – so for this to be a “correct” call in the long run, I need to be ahead about 82% of the time. Now, of course if I am behind I will catch up about 25% of the time so, that 82% is reduced to about 60%. But there are also the times where Villain is semi-bluffing, I AM ahead but HE catches up and I lose. But anyway, to be conservative let’s just stick with 60%.
"

Do you really believe this is how the math in poker works?

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that those of you (and this is most of you) that are arguing that this is an “insanely” easy call, are idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add me to the list of idiots. This is an insanely easy auto-call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Added.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am curious – how many of you routinely make huge semi-bluffs like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, all the time against small stacks who are so afraid that they seriously consider doing things like laying down top set in a spot like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) YOU were not Villain in this hand.

b) What makes you think that I was fearful here? Or more importantly, what makes you think that Villain thought that I was playing scared. Does having a shortstack = a scared player?

c) How can CONSIDERING laying down here be wrong when I was in fact crushed?

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
In the Foxwoods $5,5 game against one of the, even moderately aggressive, big stacks this really is an instant call every time, if you have been playing tight poker. These players simply can not stop themselves from trying to bluff tight players with small stacks off of made hands. It is like a disease. There are players in that game who are willing to give up massive edges (those times they are called) to make bluffs in this sort of spot. I am not at all sure that I would have any edge at all against some of these players if it wasn’t for this one leak. It is as if they can not believe that a player who buys in for 200BB and doesn’t see many flops actually wants to put it all into the middle when a good situation comes up. Too bad you ran into the nuts this time but I really don’t think you should let it stop you from taking that bet the next time it comes up in that game.


[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks - duly noted.

Perhaps I should have noted that Villain was not one of the big stacks at the table.

He had me covered, but not by much.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
"

Do you really believe this is how the math in poker works?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

I screwed up - sue me.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am curious – how many of you routinely make huge semi-bluffs like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, all the time against small stacks who are so afraid that they seriously consider doing things like laying down top set in a spot like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) YOU were not Villain in this hand.

b) What makes you think that I was fearful here? Or more importantly, what makes you think that Villain thought that I was playing scared. Does having a shortstack = a scared player?

c) How can CONSIDERING laying down here be wrong when I was in fact crushed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain to me why on earth you would ask a question "How often do you do x?" and then when someone responds with how often they would do it, you respond back with "YOU were not Villain in this hand."

[Allinlife]

this thread sucks /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am curious – how many of you routinely make huge semi-bluffs like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, all the time against small stacks who are so afraid that they seriously consider doing things like laying down top set in a spot like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) YOU were not Villain in this hand.

b) What makes you think that I was fearful here? Or more importantly, what makes you think that Villain thought that I was playing scared. Does having a shortstack = a scared player?

c) How can CONSIDERING laying down here be wrong when I was in fact crushed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain to me why on earth you would ask a question "How often do you do x?" and then when someone responds with how often they would do it, you respond back with "YOU were not Villain in this hand."

[/ QUOTE ]

You mis-read my question. My question was not "how-often" but "how-many" -
that is really not a question any one person can answer.

Fine, you El-Diablo often make huge semi-bluffs like this.

My point is that you may or may not be representative of the average Villain.

If a lot of other posters responded that they too often make huge semi-bluffs in a spot like this, then perhaps I would be more inclined to think that the average unknown would as well.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am curious – how many of you routinely make huge semi-bluffs like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, all the time against small stacks who are so afraid that they seriously consider doing things like laying down top set in a spot like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) YOU were not Villain in this hand.

b) What makes you think that I was fearful here? Or more importantly, what makes you think that Villain thought that I was playing scared. Does having a shortstack = a scared player?

c) How can CONSIDERING laying down here be wrong when I was in fact crushed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain to me why on earth you would ask a question "How often do you do x?" and then when someone responds with how often they would do it, you respond back with "YOU were not Villain in this hand."

[/ QUOTE ]

You mis-read my question. My question was not "how-often" but "how-many" -
that is really not a question any one person can answer.

Fine, you El-Diablo often make huge semi-bluffs like this.

My point is that you may or may not be representative of the average Villain.

If a lot of other posters responded that they too often make huge semi-bluffs in a spot like this, then perhaps I would be more inclined to think that the average unknown would as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

My comment still stands. You ask "How many of you make this semibluff?" I say "I do." And you respond "You were not the Villain!" WTF? Why the f did you ask the question then if you're going to give that response?

[kipin]

[ QUOTE ]
Villain showed 86o for the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, I bet you HatedDemNutz.

LOL!!!11!!1111uno

[jsmith5]

[ QUOTE ]
He lucked out because you had basically the only hand that would consider calling that bet. Most of the time someone who takes your line has AT/KT etc.


[/ QUOTE ]
Based on what I have seen of this game, I would have a hard time putting him on straight. I have seen someone make a similar play at the foxwoods 5-5 game with K-10 (with 3 to a flush on board) because he was trying to blow the small stack off his hand. It's a fascinating game that has changed dramatically over the last 18 months...used to be fairly normal game then around last fall became wicked fast and loose...and they definitely prey on the small stacks. I would think a wacky 2 pr or even A-10 as crazy as that sounds are his likeliest holdings because of the massive overbet.

My advice: take your $500 and buy into the $2/$4 game with the cap. But I've never found it to be much fun to sit back and wait for the nuts in that 5-5 game...too much craziness going on for a small stack. I have found it much more profitable to run over the smaller NL games there. $2500 would be my minimum buy in at the 5-5.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am curious – how many of you routinely make huge semi-bluffs like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, all the time against small stacks who are so afraid that they seriously consider doing things like laying down top set in a spot like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) YOU were not Villain in this hand.

b) What makes you think that I was fearful here? Or more importantly, what makes you think that Villain thought that I was playing scared. Does having a shortstack = a scared player?

c) How can CONSIDERING laying down here be wrong when I was in fact crushed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain to me why on earth you would ask a question "How often do you do x?" and then when someone responds with how often they would do it, you respond back with "YOU were not Villain in this hand."

[/ QUOTE ]

You mis-read my question. My question was not "how-often" but "how-many" -
that is really not a question any one person can answer.

Fine, you El-Diablo often make huge semi-bluffs like this.

My point is that you may or may not be representative of the average Villain.

If a lot of other posters responded that they too often make huge semi-bluffs in a spot like this, then perhaps I would be more inclined to think that the average unknown would as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

My comment still stands. You ask "How many of you make this semibluff?" I say "I do." And you respond "You were not the Villain!" WTF? Why the f did you ask the question then if you're going to give that response?

[/ QUOTE ]

***Sigh***

Fine, I suppose the question would've been better stated:

"I am curious as to how many (what percentage) of you routinely make huge semi-bluff raises like this."

Basically if I could somehow quantify the % of time Villain has the nuts vs. the % of time he is semi-bluffing - I could better determine if this is a +EV call.

I think it is fair to say that at least some percentage of players never/very rarely make huge semi-bluff raises like this. Obviously knowing whether this particular Villain is capable of making plays like this would've been helpful. Of course knowing that Villain has the propensity to make overbets when he has the nuts would've been helpful too.

[neon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is, by buying in for the minimum in this game, where people are routinely sitting down w/ 1000 BBs+++, you might as well hang a sign around your neck that says, "weak-tight nut peddler: raise me at will."

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that I can't use that to my advantage?

I did in an earlier hand which is how I doubled up.

I raised to 30 with AKo.

Got 2 callers behind me - flop KK9.

I make a continuation bet of $70, get one caller.

Turn T.

I check, Villain checks.

River 8 - I check Villain bets 250, I CR all in and double up.

I fully expect these guys to try and push me around. A lot of people would criticize me for checking the turn and river but wearing the "weak-tight" nut-peddler sign around my neck I thought it was the best way to get my money in the middle.

I was right.

So do you think that hand made it more or less-likey that they would try to bully me later on?

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, I was citing your having bought in for the minimum as a reason that should sway you to call. Despite the fact that villain does not know that you only bought for $500, he is aware that you've only got $1k in front of you, which at any given point in time in that game probably represents about 1/4 of the *average* stack at the table.

Thus, you *cannot* be laying down top set in spots like this because people love to push around short stacks in that game and you're apt to be ahead waaaay more often than you're behind. I'm sorry to hear that this was one of those times that he had the straight, but there's really nothing you can do about it.

Now if you both had $10k in front of you . . . that's a different story.

[JoeC]

I hate to sound like an ass but... I am bewildered that anyone would ponder this call in this spot, and furthermore, I am bewildered that someone who thought he needed to be ahead here 82% of the time here is putting $500 on a poker table.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically if I could somehow quantify the % of time Villain has the nuts vs. the % of time he is semi-bluffing - I could better determine if this is a +EV call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet a parade of experienced NL players (a number of whom play in that very game) telling you it is an easy call is something that not only won't you accept, you call them idiots.

[cero_z]

Hi Hoopster81,

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone really not instantly call here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. I might fold.

[swolfe]

[ QUOTE ]
this thread sucks /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically if I could somehow quantify the % of time Villain has the nuts vs. the % of time he is semi-bluffing - I could better determine if this is a +EV call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet a parade of experienced NL players (a number of whom play in that very game) telling you it is an easy call is something that not only won't you accept, you call them idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said that those who said it is an "insanely" easy call were idiots.

Can you tell me the last time you called off 90% of your stack on the turn as a huge underdog and still felt (after the fact) that it was an easy call? I will bet that all of your answers will include some sort of read on your Villain as being extremely aggro., etc. I had no such read. The only read I had was that Villain limped with an off-suit 2 gapper - to me that meant it was that much more likely he was holding the nuts this hand (if he limps T7o he'd surely limp 86o and of course 86s).

The way a "game" plays may or may not tell you anything about the way Villain plays.

Like I said before, Villain WAS NOT one of the deep stacks at the table. He bought in for around $1K and barely had me covered. So it is a mistake to think that Villian was one of the guys at the table sitting with $10K looking to bully a short-stack.

Had the raise come from one of them, I agree that this is an easy call.

[bkholdem]

To the OP: Dude, give it a rest.

[neon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you would advocate open-limping in MP w/ 1010?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Mix it up (especially when you are opening), but mostly I would limp with TT here. The reason is that you have described the game as people way overbetting their hands (not to mention the pot).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I think you've misunderstood me. I don't think it's a fair characterization of the FW 5-5 game to say that people are routinely overbetting their hands. Rather, there are at any given time multiple stacks of 1,000 BB's + sitting in the game, and the players who buy in big usually *perceive* someone who buys in for the minimum, or who only has a grand behind, as a weak player who can be bullied around and who will only put his stack in with the nuts or pretty damn close.

(The reason why is actually perfectly illustrated in this thread, as there's actually some question as to whether or not this is a call for OP)

That is not to say that every time a tight player opens, that some LAG sitting w/ $10k reraises him with crap and fires three barrels to get him to lay down an overpair. From my limited experience playing in and watching this game, this is more the exception than the rule.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Hero may be the shallow stack, but he's still got plenty of room to manuever w/ 200 bb's in front of him.


[/ QUOTE ]

You would think so. This would be the case in a normal game; however, you have described this game as being full of LAG fish who routinely over bet/raise the pot by massive margins, even when they are up against weak-tight nut peddlers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this characterization of the game--in my experience, at least--is way off the mark, and I don't know how you arrived at this impression from what I've written in earlier posts in this thread. The game plays deep, and most of the good players in the game are buying in deep and splashing around a bit preflop, but most of the big stacks play quite well postflop. The game does play bigger than a typical 5-5, but not by so much that a 200 bb stack doesn't have some room to play poker.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think not raising here is incredibly weak-tight,


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to adapt your strategy to differing game conditions. If that means playing like a weak-tight nut peddler, then so be it. Some games you should play tighter than normal (and vice versa). This is one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is just my opinion, but I think that open-limping with 1010 is very weak-tight. I guess maybe I'm just a silly LAG retard, but I don't think I've open-limped w/ tens in middle or late position once in my life.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and makes for all kinds of uncomfortable situations when the flop comes 8-high, for example, and gives us what amounts to a marginal overpair, which will often be the best hand but that we probably won't feel comfortable playing for our stack with . . .


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, playing for your stack with a marginal hand is not good. We both agree there is no need to do that. Imagine if (gasp) a real fluke occurred and an OVERCARD to your precious TT hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you open for $30, get five callers and the flop comes Axx, it's a routine check-fold. But what if you got those same five callers and the flop came as it did? Is this not a good spot for us to double up w/ 200 bb's? What about on an A10x flop? Wouldn't it be nice for us to have a nice big pot to bet into then? And wouldn't it make it much more likely for someone w/ AJ or AQ to pay us off than if the pot had been limped five ways preflop?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing out on some serious value by not raising here. I'm not trying to be a dick, but have you ever played in this game? 'Cause if you're only raising w/ five hands in this game, you're gonna get slaughtered.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're not being a dick at all. Explain to me how I would get slaughtered. Even if I took it to the extreme and only set mined, apparantely there are LAG fish who will raise me when I finally come out betting the flop. They won't run
me off of any strong hands. They can keep the $5 blinds if they want them. What I want is for them to make one of their intimidating 2X pot raises when I finally come alive. Can they really be that clueless (again, this is how the game has been described in response to OP's post).

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they're not that clueless, at least on the whole. There are some soft spots in the game, for sure, but some good and very good players as well. And again, to clarify, I was saying that one would get slaughtered if a preflop raise enabled everyone at the table to narrow down our holdings to five hands . . .

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You're right, folding is not ridiculous, especially since it's an unraised pot, and villain very well could have the straight.


[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like these guys call raises with garbage too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not necessarily. I believe when OP noted he had seen villain show down 107o, it was a limped pot. So when a tight player suddenly comes alive and raises preflop, chances are somewhat less that someone's in there w/ an 86.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yet he could also have a smaller set, two pair, a pair and a flush draw, or a straight draw/flush draw combination. He could also have absolutely nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

So why is it wrong to set mine in this game?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it was wrong to set mine in this game. In fact, I think that buying short and playing tight can be a very profitable strategy in this game because the bigger stacks have a hard time properly adjusting their play to the $1k ish stacks. All I was saying is that if we're going adopt this strategy, we have to be prepared to put our stack in the middle w/ 55 on this board, let alone 1010.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The point is, by buying in for the minimum in this game, where people are routinely sitting down w/ 1000 BBs+++, you might as well hang a sign around your neck that says, "weak-tight nut peddler: raise me at will."


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this makes no sense. I WANT them to raise my bets (or should I just say "sets"). Nut peddlers love LAG fish who think the proper thing to do is aggressively raise a nut peddler who is sitting with a short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another statement of mine taken out of context. I was citing this as a reason why hero should be calling villain's bet . . .


[ QUOTE ]
How do you reconcile these two ideas (both of which you seem to espouse, if I am not mistaken):
1. you need to raise PF with TT to start building a pot
2. people will raise you all-in for many times the pot
with semi-bluffs or pure air

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you don't *need* to do anything. Play pocket tens for set value for all I care. I think it's more a matter of one's playing style and personal preference, but I happen to favor raising. That's all.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it because you think LAGs playing with 1000BBs will fold to a MP opener who routinely raises all kinds of hands? They may all fold if they have nothing and you are the only one in the pot with them. I rather play the TT for set value against these hyper aggressive fish, rather than take their blinds. The reason I am calling them "fish" is because that is how they are being described.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't know where you got the impression that this game is populated by fish. Also, I'm not advocating opening with "all kinds of hands"; 1010 is a premium holding. And finally, I think you are exaggerating the frequency with which players (other than thabadguy /images/graemlins/grin.gif) are making huge raising with pure air, as well as the degree to which postflop play is laggy in general.


Okay, I've hand enough. I feel like I just wrote a [censored] book or something. I hope at least some of what I wrote made sense.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
To the OP: Dude, give it a rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leave me alone...I have 28 posts until I get to 1000.
I am trying to squeeze them all into this thread.

In all seriousness, I am done.
After all, I friggin' called the raise.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]

2)The reason he fired that bet into you on the turn is because of limp preflop, the villain is not putting you on TT here at all..almost always he is doing this with nothing and trying to take it away.


[/ QUOTE ]

TBG, I can't really believe you're saying this. At the Foxwoods game I almost never see significant money being put in without somebody having a monster and the average player is not bullying shortstacks-he's too busy nut-peddling to worry about players with only 1K in front of them.

When I read this post, I thought there's almost no hand this villain, if he's an average 5-5 NL player at Foxwoods, has anything other than the straight. I would fold here, but then again I would not put myself in hero's position (raise preflop, have more $ in front of me, etc.)

Edit: Just saw the results after I posted...I think everybody who advocated an "easy call" just isn't familiar enough with the Foxwoods game-it's not a bunch of terrible lags waiting to pound away at shortstacks. For the most part people are just playing their cards and not thinking too much about the way their opponents will respond to their bets. A HUGE overbet normally means the nuts (thabadguy is hardly the typical Foxwoods player)

[mgsimpleton]

[ QUOTE ]

When I read this post, I thought there's almost no hand this villain, if he's an average 5-5 NL player at Foxwoods, has anything other than the straight. I would fold here, but then again I would not put myself in hero's position (raise preflop, have more $ in front of me, etc.)


[/ QUOTE ]

i completely agree with this. i rarely see random laggy behavior and i realllllly never see an all in massive overbet without the nuts. you have to raise preflop and whatever everyone else said, but in this situation you are beat.

[don13]

Add me to the idiot list.

This just sounds like someone who played above their means and got crushed.

[That guy]

to the OP:

dude, you had the 3rd nuts and he turned over the nuts... it happens... so rebuy and get back in there.

[radioheadfan]

What's your address LuvDemNutz? I'd like to ship you a box of tissues. I might even include a basic math textbook. Sounds like you need that too...

[dibbs]

It isn't a quick fold, but feel that it is most likely right.

When this money gets deep in the 5-5 players start getting involved more with lots of little longshot hands obviously due to implied odds and that outplay postflop jazz. Hands limped or even played for a decent open here will be much more varied for the most part than that of capped bigger blind online games, like the Stars 2k.

If the guy has a set he played it freakishly, it just looks like you're in trouble and you aren't getting spectacular odds.

ON THE OTHER HAND....

You are the shortstack with top set. If you are gonna play short, you can't exactly afford to throw away top set when you hit it. Problem is it's a nothing pot and you are getting craptacular odds with one left to come against a raiser with a poorly defined hand.

Sucks you have no read. Some players in this game that see a youngish kid sit down (straight up assumption on my part about your age, although it could be an older player as well) with a minimum buy in, run it up a bit, and they will muscle the living hell out of him at any shot they can take, straight air, semi-bluffs, whatever.

I think a raise is in order here with TT pre flop, you lack artillery compared to the rest but still got some to play with. From what I have seen and hands I have discussed with friends who play somewhat regularly in this game, you probably aren't going to cut down the field too much with a decent open, but want a raised pot when you flop a set with this hand. My logic maybe be off though.

JMO, I play way, wa lower than this.

[SmileyEH]

You should have disconected after he put you in on the turn.

-SmileyEH

[mgsimpleton]

[ QUOTE ]
You should have disconected after he put you in on the turn.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]

how, by having someone else pull the plug?

[fuzzbox]

How can you say on the one hand that

"I would be really, really, really surprised to see 44 or 77 here. I cannot think of a single time I have seen someone play a set like that. Smooth-call flop, massive overbet on the turn just seems like a completely moronic way to build a pot with a set."

But on the other hand you might fold because he might have a str8.

The massive overbet is either a big hand or a big bluff. A set is a big hand, so why can he not make this move with a set ?

Surely that is inconsistent thinking.

[HoldEmKillah]

What neon said.

The play at the Foxwoods 5/5 is not bad. It is, in fact, filled with very good players while fish revolve their way in the one or 2 empty seats at the table. The game is loose as a goose preflop with players limping with any 2 cards due to massive implieds odds. But the game it is as solid as can be postflop.

Also, I have RARELY seen massive overbets to blow a shortstack off a hand there. The postflop betting in this game is very controlled with the exception of a super-lag here and there.

The game definitely gets a bad rap on this forum and I don't get why. It is for sure the toughest live NL game I've ever sat in (granted I haven't sat in all THAT many but still).

Nuts,
If you have $500, sit at the 2/4NL game. You will not BELIEVE how soft it is. I lost 2k in 30 minutes yesterday at the 5/10NL and went to the 2/4NL and was even in a few hours.

[Kyo Souma II]

I'd actually think about the call, but grudgingly make it.

With no PFR and 6 to the flop with a possible hand that may crush me, albeit unlikely ones, I'm not instacalling with this little invested in a pot and virtually no information about my opponents and their hands..

If I'm dumb enough not to make a small raise preflop, I'll let this guy make his delayed bluff on the turn if that's his style.. He hasn't been sitting here for long and doesn't know much about me, so why not try something like this with the straight?

His 'bluff' just seems a little too suspicious. I'd honestly consider waiting to learn more about his play before calling off essentially all of my stack with what may only 10 be outs. Whether or not I'd do it depends on the vibe of the table, honestly. I'm usually calling, tho.

-kyo