So you don't like JJ huh?

[bunky9590]

Prima 50 NLHE 2 deep stacks at table neither in this hand. Few medium stacks and few small stacks. Only the 2 deep stacks are reasonable players. Everyone else is fishy.

I have red jacks on the button and $42.00. 4 limpers to me, I raise to $5.00 3 small stacks call. ( I have them all covered)

Flop comes 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif
EP short stck bets all in for 12.00. 2 other stacks call, (1 other all in, other stack has 5.00 left) I push all in.

Turn 3 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

River 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Was up against A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, K /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/club.gif, and pocket 4's. MHIG.

Anybody else wanna wuss out with Jakes?
Took down a 79.00 pot.

[Mike Gallo]

Bunky,

Anybody else wanna wuss out with Jakes?

No I would have pushed all in also. Good maneuver.

[Guy McSucker]

Against small stacks this is straightforward. Against a big stack, if he bets out, you raise, and he reraises, you might be in trouble.

What's MHIG?

Guy.

[crockpot]

i assume it means my hand is good.

and yes, jacks are a much less worrisome hand when the money is shallow (assuming you don't flop a set with them). this is one reason it's unfortunate sites don't allow really deep money in NL games: opponents who treat TPTK and overpairs like they're unstoppable are penalized much less.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

i assume it means my hand is good.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah. Of course. Thanks, crock!

Guy.

[Jon Matthews]

Terrible preflop play from the KQs but on the flop, he's a favourite against you with his overcards plus flush draw I think...

[TylerD]

As said elsewhere against small stacks this is standard play. With the benefit of hindsight you were actually a large dog against those hands (on the flop) with K /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/club.gif over a fifty-fifty favourite to win the hand.

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=179910
pokenum -h jd jh - ad 5h - kc qc -- 9c 5c 2h
Holdem Hi: 903 enumerated boards containing 9c 5c 2h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Jd Jh 286 31.67 617 68.33 0 0.00 0.317
Ad 5h 137 15.17 766 84.83 0 0.00 0.152
Kc Qc 480 53.16 423 46.84 0 0.00 0.532

[bunky9590]

yeah, WTF was KQc thinking? whole hand sets up different if he raises preflop. I was a bit of a dog to the overcards + four flush, but he still has to hit to win, he didn't, I took it down.

[bunky9590]

yeah off the top of my head he is a 53% fave

[scrub]

1. I often weigh in on the tighter side, but this one is a no-brainer. I LOVE my jacks against three small stacks who can't reraise me preflop.

2. Who cares if Bunky was a dog on the flop? With the price Bunky was getting, he would have called if he could see the guy's cards. The only reason I can see for determining that the KQ was a favorite on the flop is as a claim that the guy didn't play the hand terribly. But, the guy called 30% of his stack preflop with KQ, so who cares?... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

nh

scrub

[bunky9590]

Exactly. NOBODY popped me back.

If I could see his cards, I turbo call. He may be a fave, but he is behind. He has to hit to win, I dont.

As it was any overcard cripples my hand. Noby hit their overcard though so lucky me.

Yeah, you are pretty tight, I favor the tight but show the fast gear every now and then to get those tight hands paid off.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
If I could see his cards, I turbo call. He may be a fave, but he is behind. He has to hit to win, I dont

[/ QUOTE ]

In this specific situation, with the money in the pot, easy call.

But, at a more general level, ugh. Not the right way to be thinking about these situations in big-bet.

[bunky9590]

Aggreed, on a general level thats losing poker.

The money in the pot was such an overlay to the remaining betting that if I knew what he had its a easy call, in fact if you fold to that you violate about 40 state laws.

[rodeoclown]

[ QUOTE ]

If I could see his cards, I turbo call. He may be a fave, but he is behind. He has to hit to win, I dont.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not a big Omaha player, huh? While I agree with scrub's assessment that you are getting a great price on your hand, even though you're behind, it's not insignificant to note that you are very lucky that YHWG.

In Omaha, 13+ out situations come up alot, and it becomes valuable to realize that draws are actually ahead of made hands in those situations. While the price might be right, you've got to expect to lose. In this particular case, too, an A, 4, or 5 were additional crack cards for you, giving around 20 outs against you (didn't bother to count, but I think that's close). So you're really only just over 50% to make it past the turn in the lead. Still a "turbo" call?

[bunky9590]

yep, still a turbo call.

I don't play much omaha/8 anymore.

Bunky's second theory of poker (outs are not currency)

Yeah there were about 20 outs against me, but you know what, I got all the monsters out from under the bed a long time ago.

I like Doyle's adage.

If you are ever going to be a big winner in no limit, you can't just play a solid safe game, you have to get in there and gamble.

When I think I have the best hand, I'm going to put pressure on you, all day and twice on sunday.

If the jacks get beat in that situation, so be it. KQ did play it badly though. A5 made a desperation bet on the flop and got snapped off.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

When I think I have the best hand, I'm going to put pressure on you


[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right too.

But what the others in this thread are trying to say is that on the flop here you did not have the best hand. The KQs did.

Of course the pot odds were in your favour, and of course you had no way of knowing what a big hand was out against you, so of course you played it right.

That is besides the point for this recent discussion, though.

There are many players at my local casino who would say something like "I'll take the JJ over the KQs on that flop any time". Me, I prefer to have the hand which wins more often.

If there's more money to bet, so the flop betting is not all-in, the JJ fares much better, of course.

Guy.

[James282]

You don't get it Bunky, Ulysses just gave you an invaluable piece of advice and you basically shrugged it off. But your philosophy of "this guy needs to hit to win" has got to go, seriously. Let's say you have 22, and your opponents have 34, 56, 67, 89, TJ, QK, A2, and T2, Everyone is all in before the flop and they turn over their cards. They need to "hit to win" and you are "ahead", but would you call? There are many situations in NL poker where "being ahead at the time" counts for very little. Especially against multiple opponents. Granted my example was pretty over the top, but recognizing the situations where it comes up subtley is part of what separates winning big-bet players from losing ones - and big winners from marginal ones.
-James

EDIT: Here is a very real life example. Let's say it's folded to you on the SB and you look down at Ad Ah. You only complete to 2$ because you don't want to get the BB out of there. He checks. The flop comes 6s 7s 2d. You check, ready to strike like a death cobra. BB now moves all in, but by accident, he turns over 8s 5s. Your stacks are equal at 200$. What is your play?

[bunky9590]

I hear what you are saying and you are 100% correct in saying so. Yes the KQs was the fave, but was not the "best hand" at the time. I do understand the concept.

With all the dead money in there its and auto call.

As far as your example wit the OESFD in a nothing pot with AA, its a turbo fold. Why put it all on the line with equal stacks and no dead money? My pot odds are effectively 1:1 and I'm taking the worst of it. so its a fold.

n the JJ hand its not so clear cut is it.

[James282]

No, the decision is not so clear cut, and your decision was correct. I was speaking more generally.
-James

[bunky9590]

Thanks for pounding it into my head James.

The examples that you set forth are very interesting and very true. I appreciate the time you put forth to respond.

Super system puts forth a similar scenario in the limit hold'em section that I just re-read after you mentioned it. I will take a bit more caution in those scenarios. But man it just feels so good to say "all in" doesn't it?

I know, I know. But the aggressive plays are what usually gets me paid off. I'll get cracked with them once in a while but my tendency to bust in the big bets wins me more than my fair share of gabage pots in these tight passive tables. Is the aggressive nature wrong there?

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I know, I know. But the aggressive plays are what usually gets me paid off. I'll get cracked with them once in a while but my tendency to bust in the big bets wins me more than my fair share of gabage pots in these tight passive tables. Is the aggressive nature wrong there?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between being aggressive and being foolhardy, and big bet poker draws a much finer distinction than limit does.

The deeper the stacks, the more you have to be thinking about the potential disadvantages of showing aggression in a given situation. Just saying "an aggressive style is best, I think I have the best hand, therefore I bet big" isn't a terrible strategy when the consequences for being wrong aren't that great. It's a great way to win a bunch of small pots and then get yourself busted in a game with deeper stacks, though.

Reverse implied odds are a HUGE part of big bet poker. Particularly online, where it's a lot harder to use reading skills to guide yourself through difficult situations. In general, you need some combination of (1) position, (2) a good read, and (3) a hand weak enough to get away from or strong enough to withstand huge action to play a hand very aggressively. You don't want to be betting so big that no one can pay you off when you're ahead, and at the same time building a pot so big that you have to pay off when you're behind....

scrub