3rd street play?

[Nukid]

Moderately loose 4-8 game, .50 ante, $1 bring in, no rake.
3rd st looks like

(**)4 /images/graemlins/club.gif
(**)J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
(**)K /images/graemlins/club.gif
(**)4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif
(**)J /images/graemlins/club.gif
(**)K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
(A /images/graemlins/heart.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif)J /images/graemlins/spade.gif

4 /images/graemlins/club.gif brings it in for one, J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif calls, the next three fold, K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif calls. What is my play? I decided to limp, and see if I could catch either an ace or a big heart, is this the right strategy?

[MRBAA]

I raise with one limper, fold with two, but limping is okay. I wouldn't call a bet on fourth without hitting an ace, though.

[Andy B]

Seems reasonable to me. One thing you have going for you is that the other guys are playing dead cards too. And I don't think I'd necessarily give up if I didn't catch on fourth.

[7stud]

I'll try making a case for raising.

You had a pair with an Ace kicker which plays well heads up, and your Ace was also a straight flush card in a suit that was completely live which gave you some multi way possibilities. I don't like the idea of letting the bring in remain in the hand. It was cheaper for you, but the odds of your winning the pot went down.

I also like the fact that your opponent's Jack and King were in the same suit, so if they limped with 3 flushes, their hands weren't very live.

[MRBAA]

Here's my issue with this hand in a "typical" low limit 4-8 game: the ante structure is relatively low, the players make many more calling errors than folding errors, so I'm really not that eager to steal in contested situatons (because it's usually not possible). I really want hands that are very live, because I make my real money from getting called down with big hands in big pots, not stealing lots of little pots. So I'm much more apt to call with a little three flush, or a 9-10-J three str8 (provided they are reasonably live) than with a hand that's most likely to make two pair. That said, I certainly think limping is fine. But against a loose field, I see no reason to call or bet on fourth if I don't hit my ace, even though I may be ahead. Against one opponent, I would feel differently, as it's very possible any two pair will win -- or force a draw to fold on fifth.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The good part is that aces and hearts are live. The bad part is that jacks are totally dead. The good part is that everyone else also has each other's cards. Therefore it's probably a call in my book, since your high-ish pair is probably the best hand right now. I'd probably skip the raise and see what happens on 4th, that might be a better time to put in a raise to drive people out, perhaps even 5th depending what happens.

al

[patrick dicaprio]

one reason to raise is that the K may not call if he does nothave k's. by you raising you are representingthat you have a higher pair than j's since he will not think you would raise a pair of j's that are dead. so if he has a hand like a TQK or a smal threeflush then there is a chance he will fold and if you pair your board it will be very tough for him to call on later streets. soeven if he calls your raise on third street i think there is a good chance you can take the pot later. since it is unlikely that he has kings, as he would have raised himself, and since there are dead cards, if i played the hand i would raise. i think that by raising you give yourself a chance to win the hand if you dont catch later on. plus if he calls your raise and gets a strong board you are more likely tobe able to read his hand and fold if warranted.

Pat

[MRBAA]

Maybe I'm off base here, but I think pushing dead jacks in a loose low limit game is not the way you make money.

[patrick dicaprio]

maybe as a general proposition you areright. but this hand wasnt played loose, with only 2 callers of the bring in. this is a situation where i would be looking to make money not where i was worried about losing it.

Pat

[MRBAA]

Interesting, Pat. For me, it would depend heavily on the players. I've found in these low limit games (5-10 at FW, for example) that most of the players just auto call until fifth, so it pays to only bet when you think you've got a strong hand or draw. This hand doesn't meet my standards, because it's too dead. Throw in some semi-bluff equity (ie. sometimes they'll fold to a raise on third and bet on fourth unimproved) and I'll play this. But in a typical game you have none of that.

For example, let's say the other jack in this hand has suited k and crap baby down, the king has pocket 5s down, and the bring in has nothing.

You raise. The bring in folds, the other two call. Now on fourth you may get the other jack to give up if he catches nothing, but the fives are staying 'til 5th.

Now, if the fives make a second pair at any time, they will stay to the river. If the other hand catches an ace or a third flush card or even a pair for his crap, he'll stay, too. So now you're basically drawing to two pair against two stubborn callers in a pot you've made too big to fold out of. In other words, you have reduced your huge advantage in playing ability to a very marginal advantage in the play of this particular hand. Now you may think this advantage is better than I. But this basic premise is why I think so many players complain about not being able to beat "good" games. Yes, these games are good but you have to really pick your spot.

For example, give me a small three flush with two of my cards out in this same spot and I'll limp with three others to close the action every time. Because these folks like to call, I'm confident of getting action when I hit my flush. That more than makes up for the majority of times when I don't hit the flush card next card and have to fold. Same thing with a baby pocket pair -- limp every time if it's live because when I hit my trips I'll get paid. I've been doing well in the 2-4 paradise games and 5-10 live games for awhile now playing this way and I know you are also a winning low/mid-limit player so I find our difference on this point interesting.

[patrick dicaprio]

i dont disagree with your position. i only think that the way this particular hand was played a raise may be the right play. i would raise but that doesnt make it right. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Pat

[SittingBull]

[mickblueeyes]

Given that the bring in only came in for 1.00, I don't think there is any reason to assume s/he would stay for a 3.00 raise against an exposed J and K. You'll probably get called by the K unless he has TQK, in which case he will realize his J is dead and fold. I think the raise in this situation is a good idea to narrow the already limited field and unless he has already paired/tripped his kings on 3rd st., you have the same chance of improving your A as he does his K, but with a big pair to back it up. Also, your raise may entice him to reraise if he was slowplaying a big pair like AA or QQ or his KK or KKK. Your raise might also garnish you a free card on 4th st.

There are more benefits to raising than limping in this situation, IMO.