Overly aggressive with pocket deuces ?

I have $100 at this table, CO has about $300, next closest stack is about $60.

CO hasn't been at the table long but appears to be somewhat LAG, but not maniacal in either respect; just a little of both. I know nothing about MP1 nor the BB; haven't been involved in a hand with either, mainly because I have been mostly TAG.

The CO and I, to this point, had not had a confrontation, that I can remember. Table was basically average with a few callers on the end here and there making for some interesting showdowns, but nothing spectacular.

Cryptologic 0.50/1.00 Hold'em <font color="#0000FF">(10 handed)</font> link (http://www.darksun.lunarpages.com/poker/)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, MP1 calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, CO calls, <font color="#666666">1 folds</font>, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: (4.00 SB) 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB folds, MP1 calls, CO calls.

Sometimes you need to bet on the cheap street to see if anyone is going to play back at you, right? Normally I have a hard time betting out like this (read: I am not sure if it is long term -EV or maybe it is ok sometimes?) with the smallest possible pocket, but it just "felt" like this was one of those hands where I could get away with it and possibly have the best hand (at this point). Considering only one player limped in at mid pos, and the CO had played some rags on occasion, esp in late pos, and the BB, well; the BB is the BB! So, at this point, noone has played back and I am pretty sure I have the best hand - not like anyone here would have reason to slow play. Oh, and, as some of you are quick to point out, all three of my opponents have *dramatic pause* two cards! Can you believe that!?


Turn: (3.50 BB) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP1 folds, CO calls.

I had been a tiny bit concerned about a flush on the flop, and here is another possible four flush on the turn, but I figure there is no way the CO called my bet on the flop with just a backdoor flush draw. I guess anything is possible but I can't imagine anyone with a $300 stack at this table calling me with terrible odds like that. I was also hoping my bet would make the big stack fold, but she stayed in for the river.

River: (5.50 BB) A/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets</font>, Hero calls.

My nightmare come true! Actually, I wasn't really concerned at this point, as I mentioned at the turn, I can't imagine the CO chasing a backdoor flush, but I check here to induce a bet, and when the bet comes, I decide it is better to not risk pushing a re-raise, so a mere call seems in order, aye?

Final Pot: 7.50 BB.
Results in white below:<font color="#FFFFFF">
CO has Kh 9d (High Card Ace)
Hero has 2c 2h (A Pair of Twos, Ace high)
Hero wins 7.15 BB.
</font>

I thought about posting this in stages but it really wasn't about the result as much as whether or not anyone thinks I was too aggressive... Hindsight is 20/20 and in this case it didn't give me enough info...

[milesdyson]

why did you call the river?

[ QUOTE ]
why did you call the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I figured the CO was bluffing.

Wouldn't you? Or maybe a better question is, do you never call in this situation? I would think you have to sometimes, even if you think you are beaten, just so your opponents don't run all over you if they are bluffing, right?

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
I have $100 at this table, CO has about $300, next closest stack is about $60.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not as pertanent as at a NL table. It's not totally irrelevant either, but as long as you have 12.5 bbs you are fine.

On the flop, a check fold line is usually the way to go. Betting into 3 players with essentially no hand is not a great bankroll builder. You didn't hit your set. Next hand.

As far as the river call goes:

I should add that I was willing to pay one bet to see if I was right and to see if they were bluffing. Either way, I would learn something about this player, right?

Am I wrong in my thinking ? Is it not ok to once in a while test your opponents?

And to take it a step further, since I am just now reading about game theory and bluffing, or defeating bluffs, does this not apply to this situation? Or did I misinterpret something?

I'll play 22 for set value. I can't call this river bet as people constantly call to the river with ace rag at the micros.

If people want to bluff to take pots at these limits then they can take them, i don't see it working often aside from stealing blinds when its folded to you and you have the tight passives in the blinds.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the river call goes:

I should add that I was willing to pay one bet to see if I was right and to see if they were bluffing. Either way, I would learn something about this player, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
you can learn watching him play against the other guys for free. check calling this river is like a 1 BB mistake.

honestly you're overthinking this hand immensely. the flop bet is bad because the odds that you have the best hand here (and the odds that you actually maintain the best hand by the river) are very slim. this is a good time for some poker stove numbers, and here they are (stopped early, but you get the point):

68,139,540 games 56.641 secs 1,203,007 games/sec

Board: 3h 6h Jc

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 29.7834 % [ 00.28 00.02 ] { random }
Hand 2: 26.7658 % [ 00.25 00.02 ] { random }
Hand 3: 32.5527 % [ 00.31 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 4: 10.8981 % [ 00.11 00.00 ] { 2h2c }

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have $100 at this table, CO has about $300, next closest stack is about $60.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not as pertanent as at a NL table. It's not totally irrelevant either, but as long as you have 12.5 bbs you are fine.

On the flop, a check fold line is usually the way to go. Betting into 3 players with essentially no hand is not a great bankroll builder. You didn't hit your set. Next hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

About the stack size, understood - thought it was at least worth mentioning.

As far as the bet goes, are you saying you absolutely never bet this kind of hand in this type of situation, period?

I find that hard to believe, but if you can tell me that is the way it is, that you always check-fold this type of hand if you don't make your set, I will (try to) believe you.

I did mention in the original post that I normally have a hard time betting this kind of hand, and with good reason. What I meant was that I don't usually do this, this is an exception to the rule. Usually it is no set, no bet - but is there absolutely no time you would ever do this? Your response seemed to be so automatic in that you would never ever make this type of move, but isn't a player supposed to change up once in a while?

I also think about what this could do for my table image.

It shows that I am not afraid to bet the worse possible pair, it shows that I am not afraid to call a possible bluff on the river, it shows that I am not afraid...

Now, if they all believe that, the few bets it cost me on this hand (in which noone raised me) could lead to a lot of extra calls when I do have the best hand? I mean, maybe most people won't notice, but maybe a couple will, and maybe those couple will give me more action now because they think I am pumping the pot with pocket deuces.

Isn't that what a poker player is supposed to strive for? I see it as giving me at least partial control of the table.

Am I crazy? Or perhaps just unorthodox?

Maybe I should post at the beginning of these types of hands *this is an exception, not the rule* ?

[milesdyson]

verbose. it would be a great service to others (and yourself) if you tried to be more concise in your posts. a lot of people won't read them and you'll get less discussion, which kind of seems counterintuitive since you're putting in so much effort to type such long responses. edit: and i know the whole thing about you typing 60 words per minute and typing them as fast as you think them.

aaand back to the hand: the bets you lose playing the nut low pair like this outweigh the bets you'll gain in the future because people didn't even watch the hand to see what you showed down. and for a lovely poker generalization, if you check folded every 4-way flop when you held an underpair to every board card, it wouldn't be bad.

[irishpint]

this hand is complete spewage. you're lucky to be the second biggest fish at this table.

[Weatherhead03]

Flop bet is bad. You have the nut low and are most likely drawing to 2 outs. Turn bet is even worse. River call is the worst move possible. You dont have the best hand there 1 in 20 times even.

Just check fold the flop and play 22 for sets.

Post deleted by AJ_Bonomo

[irishpint]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
verbose. it would be a great service to others (and yourself) if you tried to be more concise in your posts. a lot of people won't read them and you'll get less discussion, which kind of seems counterintuitive since you're putting in so much effort to type such long responses. edit: and i know the whole thing about you typing 60 words per minute and typing them as fast as you think them.

aaand back to the hand: the bets you lose playing the nut low pair like this outweigh the bets you'll gain in the future because people didn't even watch the hand to see what you showed down. and for a lovely poker generalization, if you check folded every 4-way flop when you held an underpair to every board card, it wouldn't be bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, !thank you! I will try to always check-fold in this situation from now on. I let my intuition guide me here, and it was right in this case, but that isn't reason enough, apparently. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I am thankful for the advice/clarification - I can use that generalization. I usually go that route but this one time seemed like the right thing to do...

I guess I saw it also as an experiment. As I said, I have been reading Game Theory and Bluffing, and I understand a lot more now than I did a few days ago, but this session, I was very rarely bluffing, and because of that, this added to that feeling that it was right... I know, it is seriouly -EV and I have learned my lesson - that is why I came here, to ask the whys, and you have answered that.

I guess when he talks about bluffing randomly in TOP, he means on the river (or the turn?) and not on the flop, river and turn? /images/graemlins/blush.gif


You mention my being verbose, and I understand, to a point, but is a forum not a place for discussion?

I am not arguing, merely questioning your logic, because, if I post the hand with nothing other than the read, people will tell me it was a bad play, period - they will not tell me why it was a bad play.

If you saw Doyle Brunson's T2 hands before they won the championship, you would say they were bad plays.

I am just trying to say that I prefer adding a context, so the reader understands why I acted the way I did. The reason to provide that context is so that an experienced player/poster like yourself can see if/where my thinking is flawed. If I just tell you the bare minimum, I gain nothing, and may as well not bother posting. At least, that's the way I see it.

I don't need to post the hand here just so people can tell me to check-fold *without a reason*. I am not trying to sound argumentative, just being straightforward. I am seeking the reason as to why it is never a good idea, and your post has clarified that (mostly, although I don't get the poker stove stuff, but I am guessing it means that I am only going to win with that flop and those cards 10% of the time, which makes my betting seriously -EV)

Maybe I place too much emphasis on image... Only time will tell...

Poker is all about "it depends" and if I don't provide the surrounding circumstances as I see them, then there is no "it depends", and the responses I receive are useless, except in cases where there is never any other choice (but I don't know any of those...)

Ah well, I am trying to make my point while trying to understand yours, but failing, likely in both...

[/ QUOTE ]

holy [censored]

AJ i think for the most part at these limits setting up a table image isn't something to be concerned about. Most people aren't paying attention and are browsing the net or playing games or listening to music.

[ QUOTE ]
this hand is complete spewage. you're lucky to be the second biggest fish at this table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate you taking the time to put so much thought into your response.

[ QUOTE ]
Just check fold the flop and play 22 for sets.

[/ QUOTE ]
copy that, thanks

[milesdyson]

come on man, why won't you cut down on the length of these posts? it's frustrating, and it would be more helpful to you if you didn't make reading them so much of a chore.

i started reading some of that last one but there is so much unnecessary rambling in it i stopped a tenth of the way through. seeing something that long is a deterrent.

[ QUOTE ]
come on man, why won't you cut down on the length of these posts? it's frustrating.

i started reading some of that last one but there is so much unnecessary rambling in it i stopped a tenth of the way through.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow... I don't know what to say to this...

I guess I won't bother posting here anymore.

Thanks for the help.

[irishpint]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />


I guess I won't bother posting here anymore.



[/ QUOTE ]

thanks, i guess. posting is fine. this is insane.

[milesdyson]

well, if you keep posting repetitive 6 page essays that i won't read, i guess it's the same as you not posting here any more anyway.

i've seen several people ask you to get to the point before, and i thought earlier in this thread i asked you pretty nicely (for me) to consider it once again. i'll be honest and say i really don't care who posts here, i just enjoy the discussion and participating in it. all i'm trying to tell you is that you would get a lot more out of the forum if you made it easier for people to read your posts. pretty simple if you ask me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I guess I won't bother posting here anymore.



[/ QUOTE ]

thanks, i guess. posting is fine. this is insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess, for someone who is just trying to do what? Bump up his post count?

Noone said you had to read it...

[ QUOTE ]
well, if you keep posting repetitive 6 page essays that i won't read, i guess it's the same as you not posting here any more anyway.

i've seen several people ask you to get to the point before, and i thought earlier in this thread i asked you pretty nicely (for me) to consider it once again. i'll be honest and say i really don't care who posts here, i just enjoy the discussion and participating in it. all i'm trying to tell you is that you would get a lot more out of the forum if you made it easier for people to read your posts. pretty simple if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding directly to a post and I had something to say. I assumed the original poster was interested in a reply.

From now on, I will keep any posts to a bare minimum.

Sorry, I don't get it, but if that is what it takes, so be it.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
I was responding directly to a post and I had something to say. I assumed the original poster was interested in a reply.

From now on, I will keep any posts to a bare minimum.

Sorry, I don't get it, but if that is what it takes, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

guilt trip anyone? anyway, since you "don't get it," i will explain. here's a quote from your deleted essay:

[ QUOTE ]
You mention my being verbose, and I understand, to a point, but is a forum not a place for discussion?

I am not arguing, merely questioning your logic, because, if I post the hand with nothing other than the read, people will tell me it was a bad play, period - they will not tell me why it was a bad play.

If you saw Doyle Brunson's T2 hands before they won the championship, you would say they were bad plays.

I am just trying to say that I prefer adding a context, so the reader understands why I acted the way I did. The reason to provide that context is so that an experienced player/poster like yourself can see if/where my thinking is flawed. If I just tell you the bare minimum, I gain nothing, and may as well not bother posting. At least, that's the way I see it.

I don't need to post the hand here just so people can tell me to check-fold *without a reason*. I am not trying to sound argumentative, just being straightforward. I am seeking the reason as to why it is never a good idea

[/ QUOTE ]

... and this is what it says:

[ QUOTE ]
it seems that if i don't create the context of the hand, no one will be able to really explain why there is a correct action.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you see what i'm saying?

[ QUOTE ]
do you see what i'm saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Forgive me?

[milesdyson]

only god can forgive you

[ QUOTE ]
only god can forgive you

[/ QUOTE ]

I wronged you, and it is up to you to forgive me, if you choose

[Sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering only one player limped in at mid pos, and the CO had played some rags on occasion, esp in late pos, and the BB, well; the BB is the BB!

[/ QUOTE ]
?????????????
I dont get it...

You are trying way too hard to justify making a horrible play, you are overthinking this..

Grunch...

Check/fold the flop
Check/fold the turn
Check/fold the river

Way too aggressive. Bet PPs heads up, not 4way

Possibly the least appropriate grunch ever?

Anyway, if i can throw my hat in to the ring with a few comments.

First off, its very good to be thinking in terms of image etc. This will help you undoubtedly as you move up in limits that your already trying to think in such an advanced level. But Im sure you know levels of thinking right? 95% of people in a 10 handed .5/1 game are only using first level thinking. They are trying to work out what THEY have, not what YOU have. Play by the book and take their cash then move up.

Second, just a suggestion on the verboseness, why not draft your posts. Open notepad, type in everything you want to say, then read back through it and work out exactly what you have said that will be relevant to the forum. Figure out your key points in a couple of paragraphs and just put those in. Then if anyone asks you for the specifics of something or more detail, go back and put more in.

And dont get frustrated when people criticise you, its just constructive. I wish people were that critical of my posts =P

[MikeSpicoli]

Check/Fold all the way

Thanks ES, I guess I just don't have enough experience at these levels to see that I am overthinking it.

When my BR hit $500 (in my first week of playing above the $0.05/$0.10 games) and I had gone to the $1/$2 tables, I found virtually no difference compared to the lower levels, except that people seemed to tighten up a lot, which made it easier to steal blinds, and bluff...

I assumed that since I was interested in learning everything this much, that the people at the higher levels must as well, but if that isn't the case, as this thread is suggesting/proving, I should just move back up to $1/$2 and stay there til my BR can handle another move up, because I must be way more advanced than these people if you guys call this overthinking.

PS Tried the notepad thing already.

[ QUOTE ]
When you start to play poker, you will more than likely be playing lower limit games. To beat these games does not require you to become a masterful poker player, it primarily entails that you are able to outplay poor opponents. To beat good players at higher limits can be incredibly difficult, entailing many complex moves. However, winning at low limits is pretty straightforward.

What do I mean? Basically, other players won't be paying attention to you. They only care about their own cards; they don't care about you or your cards. They will play their hand as they always play their hand, regardless of whether or not you are in the pot. You are basically a ghost to them...but hopefully you will be a ghost that's slowly taking their money! If you want to beat these types of players, you simply need to a play a straightforward game that will win in the long run. For example, play tight, don't do any fancy bluffs, bet aggressively when you probably have the best hand, and utilize pot odds for your drawing decisions.

When it comes to deception with these players, slowplaying can work. These players are easily fooled into thinking they have the best hand when they hit a pair on the turn, so giving them a free card when you hold the stone nuts can be to your advantage. However, bluffing is simply an exercise in futility. These guys want to see if they have the best hand. They'll pay to see your cards just so they can see them sometimes! Don't expect to scare any fish at lower limits with an extra $2 bet.

Master the art of choosing starting hands, employing pot odds, and aggressively betting your winning hands. However, psychological strategies are generally useless. Your opponents are not thinking too deeply, and attempting any fancy plays will only hurt you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source: http://www.pokertips.org/strategy/keep-it-simple.php

[ QUOTE ]
Source: http://www.pokertips.org/strategy/keep-it-simple.php

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks much! Had read that before but was a long time ago - forgot all about it.

I guess I get into the whole I think he thinks I think he thinks thing and sometimes don't realize it...

But it is good practice for when I get my BR high enough to move up (so I can get slaughtered, pay for the lessons, then move back down til my tail uncurls from beneath my legs) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

For now I am just going to remember that they don't think, and I do, so its all good. ($125US profit today playing 2 $0.50/$1 tables - not shabby!)