I folded these. Am I getting run over?

[iceman5]

I seem to keep getting raised off my hand. Its happening more at Party than other places so I dont know if Im getting run over and folding too much or if Ive just run into better hands quite a bit. Here are a couple quick examples:

#1) 1 limper, I limp in LP with A5 of hearts. Both blinds play.
Pot is $40. The flop comes AT5. Checked to me and I bet $40. Only the BB calls.

Pot is $120. Turn is a Q. He checks and I bet $80. he check raises to $425 and has only another $150 behind. I fold.

#2) Button limps, SB raises to $30. I call in the BB with 99. Button calls also.

Pot is $90. Flop is 743 rainbow. SB checks, I bet $70. Button folds and then SB check raises to $175. I have $1000 and he has me covered. Hes shown down strong hands every time Ive seen him play big hands. I fold. (The hand just before this one he raised preflop and then checked an all rag all club flop and then raised the turn all in. He had AA with no club and beat QQ)

#3) I limp in MP with AJ. LP limps and the blinds play.
Pot $40. Flop is A85. Checked to me and I bet $40. LP folds and then one of the blinds check raises to $120. I fold.

#4) EP raises to $30, 1 caller, I reraise to $120 with QQ. They both call.

Pot is $375. The flop is 964. Checked to me and I bet $300. original raiser calls and then the other guy pushes all in. He has me covered and its another $775 to me. This has to be a fold right? I cant see how he could do that and not be able to beat QQ after the 1st guy called the $300.

These hands are at different tables at different times so I dont think anyone is purposly raising me because they know I will fold, but since Ive only recently started playing this game alot (Party $5/$10), Im not sure if Im not making the proper adjustments from lower stakes and if Im letting them run over me too much.

[AZK]

1 is awful
2 is fine
3 is fine
4 is fine

Assuming no reads etc... Obviously answers will change depending on who specifically is making this play at you. You should be able to know when you are beat/when you aren't if you datamine and study opponents.

[Yeti]

In general these all look fine.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
1 is awful


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[VanVeen]

I'm with AZK - raise all-in in hand #1. The rest are folds without a read.

And no, it is very unlikely that you're being run over in the party 5/10nl full games.

[flawless_victory]

if i had played pf like you did in each of these (your play is fine), then i would fold eveery one of these almost every time.

[Chr]

I would have folded all of them as you did.

I don't understand why anyone would continue on hand 1. Only indication is that the raise is so big at one might get suspicious. Maybe he has a lower 2 pair? I would still fold.

[VanVeen]

"I don't understand why anyone would continue on hand 1"

When someone asks questions like Iceman, he can only be asking one thing: given your general model of a random opponent at 5/10nl six-max, can I profitably continue in any of these hands?

Given what I know about the game, the hand range I assign to villain is such that calling in hand 1 is the correct play with no read. I can see that a gutshot just came and that there are better two pairs. I don't care. The hand range I assign to a random 5/10nl player given his stack and the action is such that going all-in is the correct play. What else could I possibly be saying?

[Yeti]

As someone who has played in these games extensively, I fold hand 1 pretty quickly.

It is quite an abnormally large check-raise, which is suspicious. Having said that, I still confidently fold.

[iceman5]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't understand why anyone would continue on hand 1"

When someone asks questions like Iceman, he can only be asking one thing: given your general model of a random opponent at 5/10nl six-max, can I profitably continue in any of these hands?

Given what I know about the game, the hand range I assign to villain is such that calling in hand 1 is the correct play with no read. I can see that a gutshot just came and that there are better two pairs. I don't care. The hand range I assign to a random 5/10nl player given his stack and the action is such that going all-in is the correct play. What else could I possibly be saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its full ring, not 6 max.

[Chr]

Didn't know it was 6-max! I thought it was full ring.

[VanVeen]

Eff me.

Moving on!

[kagame]

am i the only one that thinks Hero is overexposing himself by always betting the pot?

it isnt always necessary to waste an entire pot bet to get information

if there are no draws out there and youve got AJ and hit an Ace why play it so hard, ropeadope baby

[VanVeen]

You should be betting the pot with nothing often enough that they'll call with worse. If you notice they're folding, bet the pot with nothing more often until they start compensating. Protecting your hand has weight, too.

You never bet for information. Ever. You just happen to get information when they act. Based on the information you already have you make bets with (hopefully) a positive expectation. Whether betting to extract value, 'protect your hand', or as a pure bluff, the bets you make should have a positive expectation based on the information already available to you.

[iceman5]

[ QUOTE ]
am i the only one that thinks Hero is overexposing himself by always betting the pot?

it isnt always necessary to waste an entire pot bet to get information

if there are no draws out there and youve got AJ and hit an Ace why play it so hard, ropeadope baby

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but arent I more likely to get bluff raised if I only bet 1/2 pot? I know I check raise people with nothing sometimes when they make what looks like a weak bet.

[captZEEbo1]

Hand 4 also depends if it's rainbow or not.

[kagame]

i never said the point of the bet was to get information

you bet your hand b/c of its value or because of odds the pots offering on a bluff, obviously

but getting the information you need to fold doesnt need to cost a full pot bet, if your holding is marginal but has value why always pot it, you need to consider this

also, im sure there are situations that occur, perhaps rarely, when your reason for betting should be almost entirely to get information.

you speak in absolutes with no justification provided; whats the deepest youve ever played? im guessing not very.

[iceman5]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 4 also depends if it's rainbow or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I believe it was.

[morello]

[ QUOTE ]

you speak in absolutes with no justification provided; whats the deepest youve ever played? im guessing not very.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that 50-100nl game is not deep at all. Maybe one day VanVeen can work up to playing with the big boys.

[amoeba]

I think the only questionable hand is number two.

fold isn't bad but I question whether people check almost minraise here with bigger verpair.

thats the only one I can go either way on.

[FatalError]

i want to know suits on number 4, i think this is a clear fold on a rainbow, it's player dependent if it's two tone