something to think about if you play the $55s+

[citanul]

How often do you have a real hand when you do the following:

Standard raise preflop, 1 or 2 callers, you're last to act postflop.

checked to you on the flop, you bet, one caller.

checked to you on the turn, you check.

citanul

[Apathy]

There are lots of situations with deeper stacks where you should check behind with overpairs, TPTK and then call the river to control the pot. Not so much in STTs though. Just because I check behind doesnt mean I'm not calling you though /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bluefeet]

[ QUOTE ]
...you have a real hand

[/ QUOTE ]

probably never - firing again on the turn. but i like it. it certainly opens the door for getting bluffed into on the river...accepting a certain amount of risk of course giving the river for free. hand/board/opponenet dependant of course, but interesting.

[J-Lo]

i prefer to do the check on turn w/ a real hand OOP, even on a draw heavy board, because these knuckleheads ($55's) can't seem to take their free card, and then check raise 'em all in or pot committing bet. In position, i don't see myself checking on the turn w/ overpair, maybe i should start doin' that to induce bluffs.

I do this sometimes, when I have AK on a flop with an ace and two rags, or something like that. When I think my opponent would fold to a bet, and has little chance of beating me, I'll do anything to squeeze more out of him. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Degen]

this post is what sucks about playing at the 55's+

most of our good competition will be reading this...

for me, that makes me less inclined to answer these questions

[tigerite]

At least some of the time. 'nuff said.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
this post is what sucks about playing at the 55's+

most of our good competition will be reading this...

for me, that makes me less inclined to answer these questions

[/ QUOTE ]

meh.

Id say 50% of the time I have overcards, 25% I have a pair in my hand lower than the highest card on the board and 25% of the time I have a strong hand but I think my opponent will fold to another bet on the turn.

[microbet]

Sometimes I have cards and sometimes I'm just calling BS on your river bet anyway.

[ReDeYES88]

[ QUOTE ]
How often do you have a real hand when you do the following:

Standard raise preflop, 1 or 2 callers, you're last to act postflop.

checked to you on the flop, you bet, one caller.

checked to you on the turn, you check.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

how often do you do it when you DON'T have a real hand?

[fnord_too]

Actually quite often. I take this line with one pair hands (even TPTK) all the time unless I am up against a calling station. With a vulnerable overpair I usually wont give a free river, but with small blinds I like checking behind on the turn with weak hands.

[bluefeet]

I guess I'm not sure that we have defined 'real hand'. Checking behind the turn for pot control with vulnerablility certainly. Checking behind to enduce a bluff is the other avenue I thought we were exploring.

[bigt439]

Well Peter makes a good point about this being way more suited to deep stack poker and the situation you gave is just so general it probably won't spark much conversation, but there is definitely a time to do what you've said, both for pot control and to extract value. Depends on too many things to really be able to talk about generally though.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm not sure that we have defined 'real hand'. Checking behind the turn for pot control with vulnerablility certainly. Checking behind to enduce a bluff is the other avenue I thought we were exploring.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an added bonus, but the main reason I am checking behind is that I cannot stand a raise. One pair hands played post flop usually don't win big pots but they sure lose them. If I have 2p or better on a non scary as hell board I fire a lot more, but not always. Also, sometimes I fire a second barrell on air here. If I am up against an idiot, my decisions tend towards always making the same play depending on how the idiocy manifests itself.

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]

One pair hands played post flop usually don't win big pots but they sure lose them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is soooooo not true in sng poker. Ring games, you're bang on, but this is really untrue here.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
Well Peter makes a good point about this being way more suited to deep stack poker and the situation you gave is just so general it probably won't spark much conversation, but there is definitely a time to do what you've said, both for pot control and to extract value. Depends on too many things to really be able to talk about generally though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apathy = Peter ?

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well Peter makes a good point about this being way more suited to deep stack poker and the situation you gave is just so general it probably won't spark much conversation, but there is definitely a time to do what you've said, both for pot control and to extract value. Depends on too many things to really be able to talk about generally though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apathy = Peter ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yeah. Sorry. I promised myself I'd never call him Apathy ever. I've known him since I was like 10. Too weird to call him that.

[Paul Thomson]

I only check behind when I have a hand that is mediocre but not vulnerable. For example, say I call a raise preflop on the button with AJ and two callers ahead. And the flop come Axxx. I will check behind on the turn because my hand isn't vulnerable to over-cards, yet at the same time could very well be behind.

On the other hand, if the flop comes Jxx, I'm going to bet again on the Turn because my hand is more vulnerable.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One pair hands played post flop usually don't win big pots but they sure lose them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is soooooo not true in sng poker. Ring games, you're bang on, but this is really untrue here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go into PT and see how you do on each type of shown down hands. I'm not at my PT computer right now, but last time I checked one pair hands were red. (Of course some of the time you will improve on the river and not show down a one pair hand here). In the 30's, I would be more apt to bet against a little known player, but not a whole lot. (Again, I am talking deeper stack levels).

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One pair hands played post flop usually don't win big pots but they sure lose them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is soooooo not true in sng poker. Ring games, you're bang on, but this is really untrue here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go into PT and see how you do on each type of shown down hands. I'm not at my PT computer right now, but last time I checked one pair hands were red. (Of course some of the time you will improve on the river and not show down a one pair hand here). In the 30's, I would be more apt to bet against a little known player, but not a whole lot. (Again, I am talking deeper stack levels).

[/ QUOTE ]

1) i'm not by my pokertracker at the moment, but last i checked i was massively up on all hands in all stakes games except high card hands.

2) the vast majority of the players in this forum have no idea how to play post flop, let alone play post flop well. you clearly do know how to play some poker, but this needs to be pointed out. it is at the root of my response to this post and the origin of this thread.

3) the idea is to get more money in when you're ahead than when you're behind.

4) everyone wants to get better at that. everyone needs to get better at that.

5) getting someone to pour off piles of stack when you have one pair and it's good is an artform. it is the artform that this thread is a tiny fraction of.

citanul

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]


5) getting someone to pour off piles of stack when you have one pair and it's good is an artform. it is the artform that this thread is a tiny fraction of.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I reasonably mechanical about that. If I don't have a read I usually don't push one pair hands. With a read, I often get lots of chips in the center by showdown with some pretty marginal holdings (in cash games, too, but in cash games I tend to get more reads since I see a lot more hands against someone (and can pay attention to them better not 8 tabling) and there are not weird escalating blinds to figure in.) Additionally with reads I let go of some pretty strong hands pre and post flop. Reads rule.

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One pair hands played post flop usually don't win big pots but they sure lose them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is soooooo not true in sng poker. Ring games, you're bang on, but this is really untrue here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go into PT and see how you do on each type of shown down hands. I'm not at my PT computer right now, but last time I checked one pair hands were red. (Of course some of the time you will improve on the river and not show down a one pair hand here). In the 30's, I would be more apt to bet against a little known player, but not a whole lot. (Again, I am talking deeper stack levels).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well my hard drive just got wiped clean the other day... /images/graemlins/frown.gif... which will make final exams fun to write... but anyways, with it I lost my whole PT database. Regardless, if you're losing money on one pair hands I think you have a problem. I know for sure that over 1500 I wasn't. Your comment just sounded like on a K87 two tone I'm not willing to get it all in with AK, or on a QT4 board I'm not willing to get it in with AA, and in almost every circumstance you should be fine with that in a sng, whereas in a ring game where you're deeper and play is different you maybe should not be. This thread is so general it's really hard to go on, but there are a lot of spots in sng's where I'm looking to get it all-in with one pair. Sure there are spots where I need to exercise pot control, but I think extracting value with one pair (one good pair...) takes precendence over this the vast majority of the time.