OK, if someone BELIEVES they are beaten, why do they continue to play?

[SpaceAce]

I see a LOT of examples of people playing when they obviously believe they are beaten. To me, this seems a pretty stupid thing to do and I'm curious to hear your opinions on how best to exploit this weakness.

Here is an example:

Online micro limit game

I'm two off the button with AJo. It's folded all the way around to me (rare) and I raise because, A) I probably have the best hand and B) I'd love to get the button. Sadly, both the cutoff and the button call my raise. The big blind folds and the small blind calls.

The flop is 7J9, all spades. I've got top pair but I'm not in love with all those spades. With only two players in the pot with me, I'm not seriously afraid of the flush so I bet after the small blind checks it to me. Cutoff raises and the small blind cold calls. In the time I have been at the table, the cutoff has given me no particular reason to respect his raises and I don't believe him so I reraise. I figure if he caps, I can get out of the hand easily. He hesitates and just calls and so does the small blind. Now I figure my hand is good and maybe he's playing the Ace of spades.

The turn is the five of hearts. The small blind checks, I bet and the cutoff hesitates again then calls, as does the small blind. The river is the eight of clubs, the small blind checks, I bet and both call.

The small blind mucks and the cutoff turns up 99 for the flopped set.

OK, his behavior makes no sense to me. He very obviously put me on a better hand than his set. Most likely he believed I had the flush, although a straight was also possible. I seriously doubt he had me on a set of Jacks but that is also possible. If he believes his set is good, it makes no sense at all to slow down on it right on the flop. He was too scared to cap the flop and he didn't test me on the turn so he must not believe his set is good. So, why is he in the hand? I know a set is strong and I know a lot of people will say, "No way he can lay down a set," but what's the point of pussyfooting around with it, then? If it's the winning hand, get your money in. If it's a loser, throw it away. Check-calling down a flopped set seems like very poor play to me.

I am a great deal more aggressive than most of the micro limit players I face but I hadn't been in the game long enough for the cutoff to really notice that. A raise, a reraise and bets on the turn and river with a possible straight and a possible flush on the board at an average micro limit table probably means his set is beaten 75% or more of the time. If he believes me, his only out is to hit a full house (or quads but let's be realistic, here) which he missed. If he doesn't believe me, he needs to pump up the pot.

Here is some of my reasoning during the hand:
I raised pre-flop because my hand looks pretty good with no limpers and no raises. Also, there was a tiny chance of winning the pot right there and a larger chance of buying the button and/or knocking out at least one blind.

I bet the flop because I had top pair, top kicker. A no-brainer, right? I reraised the flop because I didn't believe my opponent had the flush and if he did, I figured he would cap the betting round.

During the course of play I kept betting because after he wimped out on the flop, I figured he didn't have the flush or a set of Jacks. I thought the Jacks were an extremely remote possibility, anyway, since he only called pre-flop. Also, because he cold-called two bets pre-flop with ZERO limpers, I did not figure him for 99 or 77. I figured he had either a weaker Jack or the Ace of spades. A cap on the flop or a raise on any street would have caused me to drastically reevaluate his holdings.

I believe his play was poor inasmuch as he should have at least raised me on the turn with his set and I think there must be a way to exploit these players beyond simply betting into them and letting them call you down. Most of the time, I think I am winning this hand. Do you think I could have worked a check-raise in here or would someone playing a set that timidly be likely to check it around? Do you think there are other plays to extract extra bets from someone who won't lay down a hand?

This is just one example of what I believe to be someone playing when they think they are beaten. In most similar instances, I see someone turn over JK or something like that. This time, he just happened to have a hand. I see this exact style of play from people holding A6, KT and so on.

So, who do you think was a bigger sucker? Me for overplaying my top pair or him for being such a wimp with his set?

SpaceAce

[Wake up CALL]

"So, who do you think was a bigger sucker? Me for overplaying my top pair or him for being such a wimp with his set?"

You were of course. Ask yourself which makes less sense? Calling down an agressive bettor who is trying to hand you his money but will probably fold to a turn raise or a flop cap or bertting into someone with one pair on a single suited board who has already raised you once?

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]

Ask yourself which makes less sense? Calling down an agressive bettor who is trying to hand you his money but will probably fold to a turn raise or a flop cap or bertting into someone with one pair on a single suited board who has already raised you once?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, after I three-bet him on a one-suit flop, what would make him think I would fold to a cap? Also, what would make him think I'd fold to a raise on the turn after three-betting the flop and betting into him on the turn? Finally, assuming he really believed his hand was good and he was just trying to keep the sucker in the hand, what possible reason could he have for not raising the river? I've bet all the way, including betting into him on the river, now it's his turn with one to act behind him. So, believing he has the best hand, he just calls? I don't think so. Consider his options: if he calls, the small blind will call and the river will be worth 2 bets for him (not including his own). If he raises, the small blind will almost certainly call two bets after tagging along this far, so even if I fold the river is worth three bets for him, now. If both the small blind and myself call, it's worth four bets to him. If the small blind folds, he can still expect to get one more bet out of me after I bet aggressively all the way to the river so the very worst he could do is get the same number of bets as a call would have given him whereas he has a couple of shots to get even MORE bets out of us.

So, I don't believe calling on the river is smart if he believes he has the best hand because he is very likely to get more bets with a raise and almost 100% certain not to lose a bet by having both of us fold. If he does NOT believe he has the best hand then all that stuff you said about trying to keep me from folding does not apply.

Anyway, even if I was the sucker in this hand, I don't believe he played it well. I certainly think he misplayed the river.

SpaceAce

[LetsRock]

He was probably concerned about the fluch possibility and was just keeping you honest. YOur aggression put him into call-down mode. I don't know that I would have played any differrently.

Your actions could have been pure "bluff" in his eyes but the one color board forced him into "better safe than sorry" mode. He tried to push you back on the flop, but your resistance convinced him there could be trouble. So he made sure you hade the goods.

I hope you aren't pissed about this hand because he just had better cards than you and chose to underplay them in the face of your raises.

What would you have done? Keep raising? With a 3 flush on the board? Come on.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Look, I got less than half through your post and I already see the problem. You are attributing intelligence and card savvy equal to that of a 2+2er to a magoo. Bad assumptions. MOST card players can't see past the end of their own noses, let alone attribute advanced strategic thinking to THEIR OPPONENTS. Give up on this notion right now. Magoos don't think, they just DO. Just cuz you analyze something does not mean they have any clue as to the processes or logic you used.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I must agree, his opponent played reasonably.

al

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, even if I was the sucker in this hand, I don't believe he played it well. I certainly think he misplayed the river.

SpaceAce


[/ QUOTE ]

O.K...do you feel better now? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[J_V]

Of course, any decent player would have kept raising.

[J_V]

No, his opponent clearly is very bad. His play is far from reasonable IMO.

[J_V]

the advice out here these days is almost unreadable. If I ever commit a crime and get sentenced to community service, I'm coming on here and answering posts.

You're right, you played well and your opponent played poorly.

[Wake up CALL]

JV it amazes me that you somehow are an online winner with some of the advice you offer.

Now carefully re-read the initial post then please outline how the winner of the hand could have made any more profit. At most he left 1 BB on the table but he probabbly gained a BB by the way he played the hand. (This of course assumes you were not the one with top pair top kicker since you would have gone off like a roman candle even if capped on the flop and then raised on the turn). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The SB was on a single card flush draw with a pair and a poor kicker. Just how much heat will he take before he gives the hand up? Also how much heat will our hero take before he realizes he is beat? Probably a turn raise ends the hand right there. Certainly a raise on the river will cause the SB to fold and even if our hero will make a crying call it is a push on the money. If he caps the flop I doubt he makes as much either, in other words "played nearly perfectly" with little chance of making any more on the hand than he did.

[Kenshin]

If I held the set in this instance, I would suspect that my opponent had me beat. However, despite this belief, I would call the bettor down. The number of times that the agressor did not flop the flush would more than compensate for his legitimate plays. Effectively, I believe the old maxim that it is better to lose two more bets than the entire pot applies here.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
If I ever commit a crime and get sentenced to community service, I'm coming on here and answering posts.


[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHA. But seriously, I think that the error in your thinking here is obvious - you say "I don't respect his raises" but then you say "we haven't played enough with eachother for him to know that I will blah blah blah". Don't try to be the king of all reads and then claim yourself to be unreadable. A lot of times even the most aggressive fish will slow down on a monotone board. I think his raise says "I am better than jacks", but I don't play at these limits so I am not sure. Obviously he played the hand poorly and he probably doesn't even know why. To say he shouldnt have raised the turn is heresy.
-James

[Ed Miller]

"No way he can lay down a set," but what's the point of pussyfooting around with it, then? If it's the winning hand, get your money in. If it's a loser, throw it away. Check-calling down a flopped set seems like very poor play to me.

So folding is a better play than calling when you hold a set on a three-flush board? There is money in the pot... the decision you have to make is not "do I think I have the best hand?" the decision is, "do I think I have the best hand OFTEN ENOUGH to make calling profitable." When you want to raise, your decision is not, "do I think I have the best hand?" the decision is, "do I think that I will have the best hand a significant majority of the time WHEN I AM CALLED." To determine what a significant majority of the time is, you have to ask, "How likely am I to be reraised by a hand that beats mine, and how likely am I to be reraised by a hand that I can beat?"

Your discussion in this thread leads me to believe that you do not understand the theory of play on the river. You should reread the section on the river in HPFAP and heads-up on the river in TOP.

[CrisBrown]

Hi SpaceAce,

[ QUOTE ]
OK, his behavior makes no sense to me. He very obviously put me on a better hand than his set. Most likely he believed I had the flush, although a straight was also possible. I seriously doubt he had me on a set of Jacks but that is also possible. If he believes his set is good, it makes no sense at all to slow down on it right on the flop. He was too scared to cap the flop and he didn't test me on the turn so he must not believe his set is good. So, why is he in the hand? I know a set is strong and I know a lot of people will say, "No way he can lay down a set," but what's the point of pussyfooting around with it, then? If it's the winning hand, get your money in. If it's a loser, throw it away. Check-calling down a flopped set seems like very poor play to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the three-suit flop, his set turned into a bluff-catcher hand. Check-calling is the right strategy for a bluff-catcher. Your two-pair was also a bluff-catcher, even if you didn't realize it, and your smarter play would also be to check-call to the river.

He wasn't the one making a mistake. You were.

Cris

[Al_Capone_Junior]

So let's see... let me think... I flop a set on a one-suited board, my opponent reraises my raise, but I'm an idiot if I don't keep reraising him all the way even tho I make no full house. OK JV.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

You see JV thinks those two dudes in the famous painting touching fingers are actually himself and jesus, thus his attitude when giving his (often sketchy) advice.

It's quite clear the set of nines played it just fine. I would challenge anyone else other than JV to suggest he played it horribly.

al

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
The SB was on a single card flush draw with a pair and a poor kicker. Just how much heat will he take before he gives the hand up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the size of the pot, you would prefer your opponent fold a flush draw on the turn than call one bet with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Also how much heat will our hero take before he realizes he is beat? Probably a turn raise ends the hand right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think typical opponents are folding top pair or an overpair to a turn raise (especially in this kind of steal situation)... I don't know what to tell you.

Let a master show you how it's done... Ikke hand (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=headsup&Number=213901&Foru m=All_Forums&Words=324&Match=Username&Searchpage=4 &Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=213539&Search=true#Pos t213901)

And that was heads up... the third player in this hand makes not raising the turn just awful.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
If I ever commit a crime and get sentenced to community service, I'm coming on here and answering posts

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making the assumption (incorrectly) that your advice is always 100% correct and everyone else's is always wrong, something you have been doing for as many years as I have seen you on these forums. I doubt the community is as well served by you as your own ego is. Obviously this hand is debatable and not 100% clear cut so get off your high horse already.

al

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
Your actions could have been pure "bluff" in his eyes but the one color board forced him into "better safe than sorry" mode. He tried to push you back on the flop, but your resistance convinced him there could be trouble. So he made sure you hade the goods.

I hope you aren't pissed about this hand because he just had better cards than you and chose to underplay them in the face of your raises.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand his concern but I would expect him to test me with at least a flop cap considering the power of his hand.

I am not bothered that he had better cards. As you can see from my posts, I think he should have beaten me out of more money, not less.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, I got less than half through your post and I already see the problem. You are attributing intelligence and card savvy equal to that of a 2+2er to a magoo. Bad assumptions. MOST card players can't see past the end of their own noses, let alone attribute advanced strategic thinking to THEIR OPPONENTS. Give up on this notion right now. Magoos don't think, they just DO. Just cuz you analyze something does not mean they have any clue as to the processes or logic you used.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, a magoo? Anyway, I don't think he was stupid or lacking intelligence, I just think he was a little soft on me with his set.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, even if I was the sucker in this hand, I don't believe he played it well. I certainly think he misplayed the river.

SpaceAce


[/ QUOTE ]

O.K...do you feel better now? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I never felt bad /images/graemlins/smile.gif It's looking like I am either flat wrong, here, or the people that are replying are a touch on the cautious side. I think he should have raised me on the river, at least, because he almost certainly would have gotten more bets in the pot and there is about a 0% chance that he'd lose one by folding me out.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
the advice out here these days is almost unreadable. If I ever commit a crime and get sentenced to community service, I'm coming on here and answering posts.

You're right, you played well and your opponent played poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

So far, you're the only one who thinks so. I love to read the responses, though. Whether or not the advice I get on a question like this is correct, it alwas gives me something to think about.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
JV it amazes me that you somehow are an online winner with some of the advice you offer.

Now carefully re-read the initial post then please outline how the winner of the hand could have made any more profit. At most he left 1 BB on the table but he probabbly gained a BB by the way he played the hand. (This of course assumes you were not the one with top pair top kicker since you would have gone off like a roman candle even if capped on the flop and then raised on the turn). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The SB was on a single card flush draw with a pair and a poor kicker. Just how much heat will he take before he gives the hand up? Also how much heat will our hero take before he realizes he is beat? Probably a turn raise ends the hand right there. Certainly a raise on the river will cause the SB to fold and even if our hero will make a crying call it is a push on the money. If he caps the flop I doubt he makes as much either, in other words "played nearly perfectly" with little chance of making any more on the hand than he did.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're pessimistic about the possible outcomes. I do not believe there was any chance of folding the small blind with a raise on the river after he went that far and endured the pre-flop and flop raising. I would certainly have made the crying call just to see what he had and gain information about his playing style. I think if I had been forced to pay one more big bet, it would have been worth it to see that set and know that he can be so easily backed off of one.

You're right that a turn raise would have knocked me out, but I don't think the small blind was going anywhere. Also, given my aggression, he had no reason to believe I would fold. That goes back to what I said about him believeing he was beaten, though. If he did NOT believe he was beaten, he may keep me in by not raising the turn but there is no reason not to raise the river. As you said, he probably only left one big bet behind but that could be his profit the hour (or half hour with more hands dealt per hour online). I don't like to leave any bets behind and I think the one time he loses a bet with a raise on the river will be made up for by the ten times he doesn't.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I ever commit a crime and get sentenced to community service, I'm coming on here and answering posts.


[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHA. But seriously, I think that the error in your thinking here is obvious - you say "I don't respect his raises" but then you say "we haven't played enough with eachother for him to know that I will blah blah blah". Don't try to be the king of all reads and then claim yourself to be unreadable. A lot of times even the most aggressive fish will slow down on a monotone board. I think his raise says "I am better than jacks", but I don't play at these limits so I am not sure. Obviously he played the hand poorly and he probably doesn't even know why. To say he shouldnt have raised the turn is heresy.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my specific words were he "the cutoff had not given me any particular reason to respect his raises," and, "but I hadn't been in the game long enough for the cutoff to really notice that". I picked those phrases carefully but I think you might have misunderstood what I meant. The cutoff had been playing FAR more hands than me, so I had plenty of opportunities to see him play whereas I was playing a much tighter pre-flop game in addition to the fact that I don't go to showdown with many hands unless I am pretty certain that they are winners. I also muck 99% of my winners and losers. The effect of this is that, although I had been sitting at the table a while, the cutoff had not seen me in very many hands or seen my cards more than once or twice but I had seen him play a good deal and got to see the hands he was betting and raising with fairly often.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
"No way he can lay down a set," but what's the point of pussyfooting around with it, then? If it's the winning hand, get your money in. If it's a loser, throw it away. Check-calling down a flopped set seems like very poor play to me.

So folding is a better play than calling when you hold a set on a three-flush board? There is money in the pot... the decision you have to make is not "do I think I have the best hand?" the decision is, "do I think I have the best hand OFTEN ENOUGH to make calling profitable." When you want to raise, your decision is not, "do I think I have the best hand?" the decision is, "do I think that I will have the best hand a significant majority of the time WHEN I AM CALLED." To determine what a significant majority of the time is, you have to ask, "How likely am I to be reraised by a hand that beats mine, and how likely am I to be reraised by a hand that I can beat?"

Your discussion in this thread leads me to believe that you do not understand the theory of play on the river. You should reread the section on the river in HPFAP and heads-up on the river in TOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't think I advocated folding as his best option. I think folding his hand is a bad idea but only slightly worse than not milking his set, ESPECIALLY when he's playing middle pairs like 99 for a raise with no limpers in a micro limit game. If he's going to be taking chances with 99 against three opponents in a game where half of the players play anything from a ten on up, he'd better be getting maximum value for his set.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
With the three-suit flop, his set turned into a bluff-catcher hand. Check-calling is the right strategy for a bluff-catcher. Your two-pair was also a bluff-catcher, even if you didn't realize it, and your smarter play would also be to check-call to the river.

He wasn't the one making a mistake. You were.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I asked who was the bigger sucker. The point is, I don't believe he was "bluff catching" or doing anything else even remotely thoughtful. I think he was simply playing scared with his set. I have yet to hear anyone present a compelling reason for why he shouldn't raise the river. After I raised pre-flop, reraised the flop and bet all the way to the river, he had NO reason to think I would fold to a single raise so he was going to get the same number of bets at the very minimum with a good chance of getting two MORE bets.

Also remember that this is micro limit and 75% of the time I see someone three-bet a single-suit flop, I expect to see a flush (albeit usually a really crappy one like 58s).

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
So let's see... let me think... I flop a set on a one-suited board, my opponent reraises my raise, but I'm an idiot if I don't keep reraising him all the way even tho I make no full house. OK JV.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure that's what he meant and I know it isn't what I meant. Capping the flop or raising me on the turn is not nearly so foolhardy as capping every street nonstop.

SpaceAce

[chesspain]

SpaceAce,

I think we can finally put this thread to bed. I haven't seen a dead horse beaten this much since the Godfather.

[Lawrence Ng]

I think you are just upset your opponent played the hand better off than you did and you lost and extra 1 or 2 BB's because your opponent played it right.

If I knew 100 % percent of the time I was beaten I would be the richest man in the world knowing exactly when to lay down and and when to raise. But the truth is I don't see through cards and I do not know 100 percent of the time when I'm beaten. My best estimate would be 95 % of the time, and even then it's worthy of a call sometimes to pay off my opponent because of that 5 % margin of error.

Maybe I'm a fool, but forgive me for calling "if I think I'm beat" and losing 1 more big bet as opposed to not calling down and losing the whole pot, especially a big pot. I just can't sleep at night and the nightmares haunt me. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Ed Miller]

I think folding his hand is a bad idea but only slightly worse than not milking his set...

Well, you are wrong. Folding the set is MUCH worse than missing one reasonably marginal raise.

I'm not trying to pick on you... the only reason I responded at all is because I think your thought process about this whole situation is flawed. "If it's a winning hand, get your money in. If it's a loser, throw it away." is not something that a player who truly understands limit poker would ever say.

There are many times in limit poker where it is correct to check and call with a hand that you think is probably best. There are also many times in limit poker where it is correct to check and call with a hand that you think is probably not best. I'm not commenting on your opponent's play in this situation... I'm only commenting on your take on his play. I am concerned that thinking in this way will cause you to make errors down the line.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Ed,
Glad to see you over here at the Psychology Forum.
Regards,
Al

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
SpaceAce,

I think we can finally put this thread to bed. I haven't seen a dead horse beaten this much since the Godfather.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am simply doing the courtesy of replying to everyone that took the time to comment. Just like I am doing right now.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are just upset your opponent played the hand better off than you did and you lost and extra 1 or 2 BB's because your opponent played it right.

If I knew 100 % percent of the time I was beaten I would be the richest man in the world knowing exactly when to lay down and and when to raise. But the truth is I don't see through cards and I do not know 100 percent of the time when I'm beaten. My best estimate would be 95 % of the time, and even then it's worthy of a call sometimes to pay off my opponent because of that 5 % margin of error.

Maybe I'm a fool, but forgive me for calling "if I think I'm beat" and losing 1 more big bet as opposed to not calling down and losing the whole pot, especially a big pot. I just can't sleep at night and the nightmares haunt me. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it around here? Anyone who posts a hand they lost must be upset? I don't care that I lost the hand. It was only a few bets and I lose hands all the time. Besides, I was behind from the word go which means he SHOULD have won the hand. I said it before and I'll say it again: not only should I have lost the hand, I think I should have lost a bare minimum of one more big bet.

Another factor that a lot of people seem to be ignoring is that this guy is going to show me pocket tens or JK WAY more often than 99. And someone betting my hand the way I was at a micro limit table is going to be showing down two clubs way more often than AJ.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
I think folding his hand is a bad idea but only slightly worse than not milking his set...

I'm not trying to pick on you... the only reason I responded at all is because I think your thought process about this whole situation is flawed. "If it's a winning hand, get your money in. If it's a loser, throw it away." is not something that a player who truly understands limit poker would ever say.


[/ QUOTE ]

He went totally belly-up. He didn't test me on the flop, he didn't test me on the turn and he didn't bother to try and get an extra bet in on the river. That smells like someone who really believes they are beaten.

How incredibly marginal would his faith in his hand have to be to just give up and check-call down with a flopped set? I am getting two wildly varying positions from the responses:
#1) He knew he had you beaten and was trying to milk you (bull or he would have raised the river)
#2) He though he _might_ be beaten but he really thought his hand was best (I think this is also bull or he should have at least thrown a cap on the flop)

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

One other thing: no one is paying any attention to the fact that I said, "This is just one example". Please read the part at the bottom where I give other examples of this sort of play. Would you think he'd done the right thing with any other apparently "not-quite-good-enough" hand such as K5 or A3 top pairs or two pair against a 4-card inside straight?

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

By the way, you don't have to keep trying to convince me that I was the sucker, here. It is very clearly the general consensus that I played poorly and he played well.

SpaceAce

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
And that was heads up... the third player in this hand makes not raising the turn just awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rob you have it backwards, the reason he played it well is because he had a 3rd player calling behind him. If it had been heads-up I would have advocated a different course of action. As ocassionally happens (shudder to you JV worshippers) he is wrong on the correct play of this hand.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Judges, lawyers, doctors, and scientists can be magoos at poker. Smarts doesn't equate with card playing savvy. He probably thought you had a flush, but he had a set, so he had to keep you honest because there was doubt. That's the size of it, whether he was an actual magoo or not. Had the board pair you would have of course been raised.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[J_V]

No you guys just play bad poker. I'm trying to think of another way to play and i can't. Are you just gonna check-call, check/fold? Maybe the lower limit games people don't raise with out better the TP/TK. But, I've never played in a game like that.


The flop raise means about as much to me as a kiss on the cheek.

[J_V]

LOL, that's a new one. I see nothing wrong at all with this play here. I keep rereading the post to see if i missed a turn raise or something.

If you never bet the river, get called and lose, you aren't betting the river enough. Sorry for oversimplifying, but you guys act like it's a crime if you show a loser.

[webiggy]

Am I missing something here, or was the winner of this hand not getting odds sufficient to bet on improving his hand? When flopping trips, don't you have about 10 outs available?

Staying in this hand was a bad idea with AJo with no flush cards in your hand. Last time I checked, a pair is the next to worst hand in poker.

[J_V]

Wow, has poker gotten good. No wonder there is so much money to be made. These forums have become almost useless for advice.

[J_V]

The three nines unquestionable played it horribly IMO and if you would play it this way, I'm saying you have serious leaks. Of course, that's just one man's opinion.

[J_V]

What a great hand Rob! I remember that one. The master is right on the money. And if you don't don't believe me, take it from Rob or Ikke.

I bet Ikke makes more money than some small countries GDP's.

[J_V]

I think some hands are debatable, the way the 999 guy played this hand isn't. He played it like a loose/passive fish who clearly couldn't beat an egg. SpaceAge played the hand very well and all you guys mocked him saying he played it poorly. As defender or righteous and true, I had no choice but to speak up.

These forums helped me so much in my development. The advice has gotten to the point now, where over half of the responses are just flat out wrong - something you would never see back in the day. I'm not pointing fingers at you or wake_up_call, eventhough are styles are much different. Generally, your posts are on. But you guys missed the boat on this one and so did the other posters.

Of course I think my advice is 100% correct, I'm the one giving it, aren't I? I try not intentionally give bad advice.

[J_V]

Of course. The turn needs to be raised, it's automatic.

[J_V]

One flop raise does not sat "better than jacks." Not in my book.

[webiggy]

lol. Look, no one can dispute that betting into a made flush is a stupid thing to do, but, this player made a correct but risky read. The preflop raise would not necessarily translate into a made flush would it? In fact, in low limit, couldn't someone as easily have been on a pair and was raising the flop to protect it? On the flop, he made some info bets to see if the player had it or was protecting a high pair or a four flush (intentionally or not). Why not check call to the river and see for the sake of a couple of BB's? This is low limit after all. Besides, the hero was just as faulty for betting into the flush which no one had) So here's a guy betting that our hero didn't have the goods (and he was right) while also having the opportunity to beat the flush.

I was in a hand like this, but I misplayed a 10 high made flush in the BB and got beat by a guy in EP with a pair of 3's who flopped a set and paired the board for a 3s full of K's FH. I lost an $80 pot. I posted this hand and while my flop play hurt me everybody said that the winner played the hand fine and this guy limped with 3's in EP and the pot was raised behind him. In this case, the winner had ligit hand coming in, flopped a set. With all the money in the post flop pot, he was getting odds to call it down and find the truth. I'm sorry but given the circumstances, it was a reasonable play.

[Wake up CALL]

JV,

I notice all you could do is reitterate that your enlightened analysis of this hand is correct and others are wrong. I also noticed that you were unable to describe a way to play the hand where it is likely more money would be made. The only useful thing you added in your last few posts was "Maybe the lower limit games people don't raise with out better the TP/TK. But, I've never played in a game like that. ". You should have stopped there when you had a chance.

[J_V]

you don't think, I could give reasons as to why i am right? I just don't have the time. You don't want to learn from me and I don't want to learn from you, so I think it would be best if we stopped arguing.

[webiggy]

untrue!

I think we can all learn from each other. Please enlighten us as to what the right play would have been assuming that we are not weak tight players.

[Homer]

JV doesn't have time to enlighten us. Mocking us is a full-time job.

-- Homer

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
JV doesn't have time to enlighten us. Mocking us is a full-time job.

-- Homer

[/ QUOTE ]

A serious contender for quote of the year Homer, thanks for the laugh! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ed Miller]

I'm a long-time lurker. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif