Debtable one..

[1800GAMBLER]

$200 buy in, 1/2 all stacks the same. 6 handed.

UTG folds, next does, i open call with 98s, loose player calls in, loose SB calls in, average tightness average aggression (BB) makes it $10.

I call, as do both others.

Flop:

4 8 2r

BB bets $12, i call, rest fold.

Turn:

6o

BB bets $20, i call.

River:

3

He checks, i check.

Comments? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[kelvin474]

If he's anything like a lot of the 1-2 players I face, he has two big cards and couldn't bring himself to fire at the river unimproved...

[Guy McSucker]

He's either pushing two big cards or has an overpair and bet small to keep you in, then lost his nerve on the river.

I don't like the preflop play at all. When you open-call you have no real idea if you can get paid off if you hit your speculative hand and you are out of position with what will most likely be a draw; and when you call the raise you must know you're behind and likely to face resistance, and you're going to be caught between the bettor and the rest of the field for the remainder of the hand.

Can't see anything wrong with the rest since BB didn't make a proper bet at any stage. Really you're just checking it down, more or less. Could it have been worth a big bet on the river? Or would you just prefer to see his cards?

Guy.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't like the preflop play at all. When you open-call you have no real idea if you can get paid off if you hit your speculative hand and you are out of position with what will most likely be a draw; and when you call the raise you must know you're behind and likely to face resistance, and you're going to be caught between the bettor and the rest of the field for the remainder of the hand.




[/ QUOTE ]

That's one thing i didn't consider at all. Thanks.

I knew they were coming preflop, should have considered after that.

This is usually a straight forward muck but i started thinking why it is a straight forward muck. My reason was the preflop raise damages my implied odds. Then i realised that was wrong. Since after the preflop raise the pot gets bigger so the bet size also increases on the flop, so the implied odds are the same.

Now i've actually thought about it again it's a dumb move. Since if he's capable of pot betting on the flop i have to fold after his preflop raise i have to fold.

[ QUOTE ]


Can't see anything wrong with the rest since BB didn't make a proper bet at any stage. Really you're just checking it down, more or less. Could it have been worth a big bet on the river? Or would you just prefer to see his cards?

Guy.



[/ QUOTE ]

It was pretty easy to tell he has AK AQ at the end which i figured just weren't calling. Meanwhile i could put a long shot on him having 99 TT and got soft which would of course call.

[nicky g]

"My reason was the preflop raise damages my implied odds. Then i realised that was wrong. Since after the preflop raise the pot gets bigger so the bet size also increases on the flop, so the implied odds are the same."

Not really. Before you had the chance of winning up to $200 for a $2 investment (assuming you're the only two players). After calling the raise you have the chance of winning around 190, having made a $10 investment. Your impled odds have gone down a lot.
If the stacks were unlimited, then you could argue that your implied odds hadn't changed.

[Ignatius]

The original preflop call is a bit on the loose side and only justifyable is raised pots are rare. Suited connectors simply don't play well from early position. After the BB made it $10, calling for 5% of your stack is borderline, but still OK as now you have position on the raiser.
.
After the flop, you played the hand too passive. His weak 1/4 pot bet probably means overcards (most likely AK). Raise (say, to $40) to protect your toppair and try to get it heads up. If he comes over the top, you can safley put him on an overpair and muck, otherwise keep up the presure if the turn comes low.

[1800GAMBLER]

All the stacks rarely go in.

[1800GAMBLER]

'After the flop, you played the hand too passive. His weak 1/4 pot bet probably means overcards (most likely AK). Raise (say, to $40) to protect your toppair and try to get it heads up. If he comes over the top, you can safley put him on an overpair and muck, otherwise keep up the presure if the turn comes low.'

That is the one reply i knew i'd disagree with. If he has over cards he has just made a -EV if i come over the top on that board he's probably done with his hand. Meanwhile if i call he should fire out another bluff.

Raising does have the advantage of the information but it's 2:1 he has overcards compared to overpair. Hence just from that if the pot was zero the call would be fine.

[nicky g]

In a 100x BB game? I find that surprising (it only takes a couple of pot-sized bets). OK then that makes a difference but you still have cut down somewhat on your theoretical implied odds, as they will occasionally go in.

[nicky g]

By the way if the stacks rarely go in in this situation then I don't think you have the implied odds to call. I suppose it depends how rarely.

[1800GAMBLER]

Agreed.

I'm wondering why TJ and Bob include this in their 10% rule of thumb. Suited connectors either like lots of players putting money in on the flop or money in when they are ahead; with a preflop raiser neither look likely.

Plus the preflop raiser will wreck the odds to draw and is unlikely to fold if we play them aggressively.

So the best suited connectors can hope for it to hit a flop were their draw makes them favourite.

Someone clear this up for me?

[Zag]

[ QUOTE ]
'After the flop, you played the hand too passive. His weak 1/4 pot bet probably means overcards (most likely AK). Raise (say, to $40) to protect your toppair and try to get it heads up. If he comes over the top, you can safley put him on an overpair and muck, otherwise keep up the presure if the turn comes low.'

That is the one reply i knew i'd disagree with. If he has over cards he has just made a -EV if i come over the top on that board he's probably done with his hand. Meanwhile if i call he should fire out another bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the battle cry of passive players everywhere!! Against players who bluff far too often, it is the correct strategy. However, against everybody else, you want to make a raise on the flop. If he does have overcards, then you want to make sure he is making a mistake to draw at them. Remember, he has 6 outs to beat you, you don't want to give him infinite odds to draw at them.

If he has an overpair that he is not that proud of, a bet here will probably make him check to you on the turn, so you will end up seeing the river for the same money, if you check behind. (You already said that you would call a turn bet, on the assumption that he is bluffing again. Would you have called a river bet, too?) If he reraises, or if he calls and then bets out on the turn, you can lay it down with confidance.

[nicky g]

Good points. I'm not that big a fan of suited connectors in NL. As you say, they're useful in that they can flop multiple outs (straight and flush draw) - but decent players will rarely give you the odds to draw against their big pairs etc. I prefer small and medium pairs, which are better disguised and don't need as good impled odds as suited connectors do, and suited aces, which can be gold against smaller flushes (although really this doesn't happen very often).

That said raising in position with connectors can be good from time to time as people won't put you on the hand if you hit it, and may pay you off. Also, if you're playing against scared opposition and flop a good draw, they allow you to play very aggressively with the combined equity from the possibilities that your opponents may fold and the outs you have should they call; the Doyle Brunson approach (not great for most players). They're also useful in that you play them to build the nuts, or very strong hands: if you hit the nuts with them you can play with confidence, whereas if you only catch a small piece you can get away - unlike AK or AA say, which can leave you in a bit of a predicament if you're played back at post-flop.

But anyway in NL I think pairs have much more value than connectors; I'd be much more likely to call a raise with a medium pair than the sc's.

[Che]

"BB didn't make a proper bet at any stage"?

This is my first post here at 2+2, but I've done some lurking and I'm always fascinated by comments like this one, especially when we don't know what the opponent has. I look forward to the day when my skills have developed to the point of making such judgments, but I've only been playing a couple of months so I'm afraid this time is far in the future. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyway, in evaluating your comment, I asked myself this question: Is there a situation in which I would make the series of bets that the opponent made?

In other words, would I ever make a pot-sized raise against three limpers, 3/4 pot bet the flop, 1/2 pot bet the turn, then check the river given the board cards in question.

I wasn't able to come up with any definite "yes" answers, but a "maybe" would happen if I had an overpair or an AK-type hand and:

1. The river 3 put a three flush on the board (don't know since suits not given), or
2. I thought the opponent might be holding a 5

In either case, I'd probably bet again since a flush is very unlikely and a 5 is almost unthinkable (in my novice opinion).

So, while I agree that the play of the hand as a whole is odd, I'm not sure why none of the bets are proper and I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why they are not proper.

(Note: I am not trying to criticize your claim. I am merely trying to understand the thought process that leads to the claim.)

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, would I ever make a pot-sized raise against three limpers, 3/4 pot bet the flop, 1/2 pot bet the turn, then check the river given the board cards in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your math is faulty. With four players at $10 each there is $38 in the pot (assuming $2 rake) on the flop. Then $12 bet is less than 1/3 of the pot. Similarly, on the turn there is $61 in the pot (38+24-1). Here the bet again is only about 1/3 of the pot. Generally, with a hand like AA or KK which is what you are trying to represent you would bet about the size of the pot or more on the flop and turn. Holding AK you should bet the same (if you bet), hoping to force a hand like 98 to lay down.

Paul

[PlanoPoker]

Looks like AK/AQ, but it is at least feasible that he had a big PP here, and was betting an amount that he thought a weak hand could call, and possibly looking to get played back at. Even the check on the river. If he thought JayP was the type to push his top pair this could be a profitable move. I don't favor it, but its a possible scenario. His betting also matches 77 - if he is the type to try and steal pre-flop with mid pp's. (Which I find does not work at 1-2 NL)

[Che]

Yes, my math was definitely faulty. So much for that math minor... /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Also, thanks for the explanation of what the opponent should be trying to represent if he chooses to bet.

[tewall]

FYI Usually if you see criticism about a bet size being out of line it will be because it's too small. A "normal" bet will generally be between 1/2 pot and pot. Varying bet size can be tricky as it's easy to give your hand away if you're not careful. Some experts (T.J. Cloutier being one, I'm pretty sure) advocate always betting the same amount (e.g. the size of the pot. That way you can be sure you're not giving your hand away.

[The Gift Of Gab]

The best reason to fold preflop is that, as Guy said, your position is bad: you're trapped between the raiser and the field. Apparently this guy makes readable bets, which makes your call much better, but there are a lot of situations where you won't be able to play middle pair or a draw correctly because you're worried about action behind you, even if you're pretty sure the raiser airballed.

Otherwise I probably play it the same way. You can make a better case for raising the turn than for raising the flop, especially if his small bet means he's continuing a weak bluff. The flop looks harmless but you're sandwiched. Also, depending on his level of sophistication, he may see the ragged, drawless flop as a reason to underbet an overpair and get excess action from weak top pairs and underpairs.

[The Gift Of Gab]

He's not getting infinite odds since he already bet. He's giving himself ~3:1 to steal the pot and ~4:1 plus implied on a 6-outer if he gets called. JayP just has a chance to make those odds much worse.

[Guy McSucker]

As others said, I just meant that all his bets were small compared to pot-size: under a third of the pot. Considering he made a pot-raise preflop, these bets are very small.

Guy.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the battle cry of passive players everywhere!! Against players who bluff far too often, it is the correct strategy. However, against everybody else, you want to make a raise on the flop. If he does have overcards, then you want to make sure he is making a mistake to draw at them. Remember, he has 6 outs to beat you, you don't want to give him infinite odds to draw at them.




[/ QUOTE ]

Two bets on the flop and the turn are large -EV than if i raise this so he can call. Against a semi-good player if i don't give those players the odds they'll just fold. No -EV for me.

[1800GAMBLER]

Raising the turn does seem the best play. Guess i wasn't confident enough in my read.

[tewall]

He's getting infinite odds from the point of reference of when JayP is to act. At this point there is X in the pot, and JayP can fold, call or raise. If he calls he is giving the other guy infinte odds.

If he never raises here, then it's hard to see how betting with overcards could ever be a mistake. Some of the time the bet till pick up the pot, and some of the rest of the time he'll hit his card on the turn. To charge him for the draw, JayP must raise (this doesn't of itself mean raising is the best play, but just explaining Zag's logic).

[tewall]

I think all your points are good.

Another way suited connectors can hit is to flop a pair and draw at the same time. This makes them about even money a lot of the time against a better pair, so is obviously a hand that can be played strongly, and not a flop that's that hard to hit.

I think the key to suited connectors, against decent opposition, is the combined equity of winning pots by aggressive betting and they're hitting their draw. If you play them some of the time (in position), I believe they have a good chance of being profitable. If you play them all of the time it will be too easy for observant opponents to be putting you on draws when you are aggressive.

[nicky g]

[Ignatius]

If he has over cards he has just made a -EV
.
If a 1/4 pot bet is all it takes to scare a better hand into calling and give him a cheap look at the turn, then his play actually makes some sense. But ultimately it doesn't matter a bit if his play is +EV or not. What matters is if your EV is higher by calling or raising.
.
if i come over the top on that board he's probably done with his hand.
.
What's wrong with winning right there? By calling, you just give away a part of the $52 pot and set yourself up for negative implied odds. You don't realize that you have been extremely lucky that
.
- he actually had overcards
- an undercard to your pair turned
- he didn't bet big on turn
- an undercard to your pair rivered
- he checked on the river
.
How would you have liked your hand if a queen turned and/or he makes it $40 (still less than 2/3 pot)?

[1800GAMBLER]

yardy yardy yarder.

[ QUOTE ]


If a 1/4 pot bet is all it takes to scare a better hand into calling and give him a cheap look at the turn, then his play actually makes some sense. But ultimately it doesn't matter a bit if his play is +EV or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It. Does. Matter. Because. If. He. Checked. And. I. Bet. He. Would. Fold. If. It. Was. -EV.

[ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with winning right there? By calling, you just give away a part of the $52 pot and set yourself up for negative implied odds. You don't realize that you have been extremely lucky that



[/ QUOTE ]

I just gave away 1/4 of $52 by letting him carry on. Which is! $13! He just made a $20 bet on the turn! OH! If i let him carry on i then give him back 1/8th of $78. ~$10.

Hence, by your strange logic, my play is justifed giving him back that 1/4 of the pot due to the size of the turn bet.

[ QUOTE ]

an undercard to your pair turned
an undercard to your pair river
an undercard to your pair turned
an undercard to your pair river
an undercard to your pair turned
an undercard to your pair river
ETC

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets list the number of overcards (just to make sure your post doesn't seem baised) that i fear and the actual number of overcards:

9
T
J
Q
K
A

I fear 50/50. That's given this player too much credit, assuming he would actually have some balls and make a good sized bet at the queen/king, which we have already saw he is incapable of doing.

[1800GAMBLER]

Sidenote, just to discredit every line:

[ QUOTE ]
What matters is if your EV is higher by calling or raising.


[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't know how my EV is higher than by calling or raising when you are comparing this play to my actual play since i did call. Of course calling is more EV than folding when i have the best hand.


2. As soon above, my EV is not higher by raising if he folds, which is the logic you selected bad about my play.

[1800GAMBLER]

edit: I give him 1/8th back by letting him see the turn. Not 1/4th.

[spoody]

You mention the Doyle Brunson approach with suited connectors. The thing is, his book is not really about tournaments, and that is where most of the NL is being played. With his theory of getting his money in with a average draw just to make sure his opponent wont take advantage of him is an E ticket to the rail in a tourney. He even admits that he had to follow jonny moss around texas to figure out how to win tournaments. Its alot easier to move all in with middle pair and a lamo draw when you can reach into your giant pocket and pull out another wad o' cash. I am not sure what the odds are of flopping something REALLY usefull, but with suited connectors you either get 2 pair that may need to be protected by a very big bet, or a draw where no bet might be nice. But all my draws seem to be facing an all in bet, and I have decide if I want to risk my tourney life (my last 2 tourneys I have and have hit nothing on an open ended SF!). I still think suited connectors are useful, but they are very difficult to play if you just catch a piece of the flop. - - how much money has been lost with middle pair?

spoody

[nicky g]

"thing is, his book is not really about tournaments, and that is where most of the NL is being played.

That's true, but we were nonetheless talking about cash NL, not tournaments.

"With his theory of getting his money in with a average draw just to make sure his opponent wont take advantage of him is an E ticket to the rail in a tourney."

I agree.


"But all my draws seem to be facing an all in bet, and I have decide if I want to risk my tourney life (my last 2 tourneys I have and have hit nothing on an open ended SF!)."

Isn't Doyle talking about moving all-in, rather than caling? I would ahve thought so but I can't really remember. Either, way, it's obviously not that great a move in a tourney. Not hitting your last 2 SF draws is not that unusual - you're only evens to hit (unless making a pair is also an out).

"still think suited connectors are useful, but they are very difficult to play if you just catch a piece of the flop. - - how much money has been lost with middle pair? "

I agree. But one of the points I was trying to make is that people treat suited connectors like small pairs - they call with them and hope to outflop a big pair and get all the money in. In fact, most of the time if they flop anything it'll be a draw as you say something like middle pair. They think this is what Doyle was advocating - but it's not. His strategy is one of flopping a marginal hand and playing it very aggressively, so that people know he'll always play back and therefore let him steal a lot of pots, and if they do call him , he'll at least have outs. Which is fine but not the way people understand it, or a style that most people would feel comfortable with.

[tewall]

I'm having a lot of trouble following what you're saying. Ignatius said that his bet of 1/4 pot is a good bet if you will not raise with a better hand because that gives him a good price to see the turn, meaning that his bet is probably not -EV. He then says that, even if it were -EV, that's not the important point. The important point is whether your play is higher EV by raising or calling. I understood his points, but not yours.

First you said something about it did matter that his play was -EV, but I can't see why that would make any difference to your play. All you care about is what your best play is at the point (the flop). Is it better for you to call or raise? That's the question. I'm not sure what your point was there.

Your logic is, I think, that calling was a good play because the opponent would keep coming at you regardless of whether he had you beat or not. Since you're a 2 to 1 favorite you're better off calling than raising because raising will make him fold. Ignatius was saying that his folding was not a bad result since by not charging him to see the turn he could either draw out on you or an overcard could come up which would make like difficult for you.

I think this question is impossible to answer unless you make some assumptions about what he will do in different scenarios, and what you will do in return. I'll make the following assumptions (for your scenario)
1) If he has an overpair or he sucks out on you (turn or river) he will bet $20 on the turn and $30 on the river
2) If he doesn't help on the river he will bet $20 on the turn and fold on the river
3) You will always call

(for Ignatius' scenario -- you raise the flop)
4) He will fold if behind
5) He will re-raise if ahead, and you will fold.

Assuming these things, you will lose 62 dollars whenever he has an overpair (1/3 of the time) or sucks out on you (another 1/4 of the time aprox -- 6 outs twice, this is a little off, but close enough). 2/3 of the time, less the 1/4 he sucks out on you, you win his $20 bet on the turn. This is your suggested way of playing.

In Ignatius' suggested way of playing you will lose $40 on the flop when he has an overpair and take pot the rest of the time.

Looking at it this way, I don't see how your suggestion can possibly be superior. Would you alter my assumptions in some way? Or do you see a flaw in the analysis?

Finally you wrote," Sidenote, just to discredit every line: " What's with this? Is this tongue in cheek?

[tewall]

Brunson's strategy is based on winning lots of pots unopposed and having outs when he does get opposed. The book may make it sound like he would charge into any situation, but that's not the case. His style of play was highly dependent on being able to read his opponents well. I think perhaps Gus Hansen is someone who plays a similar style.

I think the suited connectors should be easier to play in a tournament than in a cash game, provided the stacks aren't too short in the tournament (and assuming the money is deep in the cash game). This is because the ideal situation for the draw is to get all in on the flop with a normal looking bet and force your opponent with the difficult decision of whether to call or not. If he calls, you still have outs. What you don't want to have happen is to have a chunk of your stack in on the flop and still have a load left when your draw misses and then face a large bet on the turn, which is more likely to happen in a cash game than in a tourney.

[spoody]

[ QUOTE ]
"thing is, his book is not really about tournaments, and that is where most of the NL is being played.

That's true, but we were nonetheless talking about cash NL, not tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about that, I missed the fact you were talking about cash NL

[ QUOTE ]
"With his theory of getting his money in with a average draw just to make sure his opponent wont take advantage of him is an E ticket to the rail in a tourney."

I agree.


"But all my draws seem to be facing an all in bet, and I have decide if I want to risk my tourney life (my last 2 tourneys I have and have hit nothing on an open ended SF!)."

Isn't Doyle talking about moving all-in, rather than caling? I would ahve thought so but I can't really remember. Either, way, it's obviously not that great a move in a tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling with an open ended straight flush draw is debatable, but I was not able to check around and made a decision both times to call the all in and was crippled both times,

[ QUOTE ]
Not hitting your last 2 SF draws is not that unusual - you're only evens to hit (unless making a pair is also an out).

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets just say I have not seen a open ended SF draw in a long time, and then in my last 2 tourneys I see it early on and am faced with all in or fold. Maybe shame on me, but I just could not lay those down. And both times I hit absolutely nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
"still think suited connectors are useful, but they are very difficult to play if you just catch a piece of the flop. - - how much money has been lost with middle pair? "

I agree. But one of the points I was trying to make is that people treat suited connectors like small pairs - they call with them and hope to outflop a big pair and get all the money in. In fact, most of the time if they flop anything it'll be a draw as you say something like middle pair. They think this is what Doyle was advocating - but it's not. His strategy is one of flopping a marginal hand and playing it very aggressively, so that people know he'll always play back and therefore let him steal a lot of pots, and if they do call him , he'll at least have outs. Which is fine but not the way people understand it, or a style that most people would feel comfortable with.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed, he he states that the advantage is you have 2 chances to win...when the player folds, or you outdraw him. So it makes up for the weakness of the actuall hand. (I think this is exactly what you just said, sorry)

[spoody]

I think early in a tourney they are pretty tough to play. Usually you are dipping pretty far into your stack at the start, and everyone has the same amount of chips, so all in is all in, lose and your out. This is my own personal belief after getting bounced out of my last two tourneys very early with open ended straight flush draws...these are ALMOST the dream flop with suited connectors...but ALMOST is the key word.. (i realize that pat full houses and even 2 pair are really better hands because of the fact that the open sf is still just a draw and unless it is the nut straight you are drawing to, you could get hammerd by a better straight or flush. I just could not resist calling all in and could not hit anything after the flop on both of my draws. So, since i was the caller, I did not have the chance to win the pot with my opponents fold and could have been facing a nut flush draw or anything...So I made a cardinal sin of calling all in twice. Oh well, live and learn.

I think once you get out of the early stage of the tourney and have something to play with, the suited connectors begin to get easier to play, especiall when you have your opponent covered and can set him all in. But my stupid monkey play is over, no more calling all in with a draw...unless...

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[tewall]

An open-ended straight draw is typcially 15 outs twice, and is actually a slight favorite. (this would be heads up, of course). There aren't many situations where calling in all-in bet on the flop with an SF draw would not be correct, and even fewer where you could actually know that folding was the correct play. However, his is just from an EV situation.

That is to say, although it would generally be +EV to call, you may decide, especially early in a tournament where there are a lot of weak players, that it would be even higher EV to fold and wait for better opportunities.

[spoody]

well, aside from early in a tournament - both of mine were literally in the first 5 hands of a tourney - I cant think of many times I would lay it down. In a side game (limit) Im not sure I would ever lay it down, just for the chance that I could hit it and win a hat /images/graemlins/tongue.gif