A $20-40 session in Position

Ideal game conditions: Few tight players and few aggressors. I'm up a rack in two hours without having to show a card. The most profit on one hand was 4BB. I won all hands where I had a turn or river bet in the pot. On each of those hands, I was the lone-preflop raiser, and last to act. Here's the next two (and last two)hands I played:


I fold a dozen hands in a row and pick up K7 of clubs in the cutoff. Three limpers, I raise, the button folds, and five of us see this flop:


9c-7h-3c. I have second pair and a flush draw. All check, I bet, and two players call. Three-way now.


Turn: A red jack.


Check, bet, I raise, fold, and the bettor calls.


River: Blank. We both check the river and he mucks his hand.


My next hand is two laps later, JJ on the button.


Two limpers, I raise, the blinds fold, and three of us see this flop:


A-8-7, rainbow. They check to me, I bet. The initial checker check-raises. The middle guy folds and I reraise. He calls.


Turn: Ace. Check, check.


River: Blank. He bets, I call simultaneously, and he mucks his hand.


Countless times I've gone hours without showing a hand and been even during that stretch. But I can't recall ever winning two racks in three hours without showing a card. A fluke, no doubt, but it got me thinking that Position should be changed to a proper noun.


Tommy

"We both check the river and he mucks his hand"


I always show when I'm first to act and it's checked down. Hell, maybe you've got 6c-5c. I like showing here, the worse my hand the better. I usually accompany it with "Send it," epecially when there's no way I can win.


"Turn: Ace. Check, check. River: Blank. He bets, I call simultaneously, and he mucks his hand"


In my game, if you raise the flop behind a bettor and then check the turn, the other guy will bet into you 99% of the time on the river even if he's seen you call 99% of the time. Amazing.


Why'd you leave the game?

I think you found a strange line-up of players. It sounds like all you have to do is to keep betting until the last player folds.


On the first hand, preflop king-seven suited is not a raising hand after three players limp in. At best it is a limping hand. On the flop, you do not have second pair. You have middle pair. Second pair is a pocket pair which is higher than than middle pair and lower than top pair. On the turn, after showing all that strength and being bet into when the ace comes off, I would not raise but just call. I like your check on the river since you have a hand to show down with your middle pair of sevens.


On the second hand I like your preflop raise with pocket jacks. On the flop, I like your bet with your second pair despite the ace-high board. However, when you get check-raised, I think you should just call. In most cases, the check-raise will mean you are playing two outs and it will rarely mean that the check-raiser is drawing. On the turn, when your lone opponent checks to you, I think you should step in and bet. His check means he is weak and your hand is good. Bet and charge him for drawing. If he check-raises you on fourth you can fold but I think you should bet. At the river, calling is automatic.


It sounds like you have this game scoped out quite well. I compliment you on your play and your game selection skills.

"king-seven suited is not a raising hand after three players limp in"


Under the conditions Tommy describes, I like the raise. The players are all passive, and now probably more passive than ever as Tommy is up a rack. He hasn't played a hand in a half an hour or so, so they feel he's waiting out a quality hand. He's in the cut-off; by raising, he can buy the button and maybe eliminate a blind or two. By raising pre-flop, they're probably going to check to him on the flop, giving him the option of taking a free card or betting. It gives him control of the action, especially given the way Tommy plays from late (sorry, Tommy) position. It seems to me a lot of potential benefits for the cost of one small bet.


"On the turn, when your lone opponent checks to you, I think you should step in and bet. His check means he is weak and your hand is good." I think I bet the turn also, but here's a devil's advocate argument for not: If opponent has an Ace, he's going to check-raise. He might also check-raise with a draw, since the 2nd Ace lowers Tommy's chances of having one. He's going to (at least) call with a draw anyway and then check on the river if he misses, which means Tommy wins one big bet. By checking the turn, Tommy might induce a bluff or a bet with a hand worse than his on the river and win the one big bet with less risk.


[By the way, to those who might criticize us for discussing the play of a poker hand under the present circumstances, I think the terorists wanted us not to go on with our lives and we shouldn't let this happen; and I also find it therapeutic to think about things other than yesterday's horrfying events.]

Hi Tommy,


Maybe you could follow up with another post and give some insight as to why you made some "unusual" plays, i.e.reads, tells.


I think you make some great responses to other posts and I actually played with you at Lucky Chances a couple of weeks ago in a 20-40, and have seen you in "action." I would greatly be interested in your thought process, at least on one of the hands.

But Andy, why do you want to eliminate players on the first hand when you have a speculative drawing hand like king-little suited? I would think you would want a family pot with this kind of hand. The more the merrier. The other problem is that occasionally, one of the other three opponents yet to act or even one of limpers may decide to reraise thereby costing you three bets to take a flop. On the turn, I think it would be rare for an opponent (especially from a field of opponents characterized as "passive") to make the unorthodox play of check-raising on the expensive street with a drawing hand. I mean it could happen but when it does it is usually from an aggressive player not a passive one. If Tommy gets check-raised on the turn, he has an easy fold. But by betting he gives himself a chance to win the pot right away and/or prevent his opponent from betting on the end thereby giving himself a cheap showdown.

k7c a little to loose for my liking. i would muck this hand. played it right the rest of the way.

Jim: "On the flop, you do not have second pair. You have middle pair. Second pair is a pocket pair which is higher than than middle pair and lower than top pair."


Interesting! Around here, 'second pair' is commonly and frequently used as I used it.


In your parts, what does "underpair" mean?


Would 66 with a flop of AKQ be called "fourth pair?"


Would 66 with a flop of A-K-2 be called third pair?


Would AA with a board of x-x-x be called top pair?


Here, we use top, second, and third pair to refer to a having a hole card that matched a flop card. This leaves us without a term to describe JJ with a board of A-4-3 (what your group calls second pair).


I suppose it could be called an underover pair. Though I hope we find something better.


Tommy

"I think you found a strange line-up of players. It sounds like all you have to do is to keep betting until the last player folds."


That's always the case, if you "keep betting" ONLY on those hands when they will fold. This session was a VERY rare case where I did exactly that.


"On the turn, after showing all that strength and being bet into when the ace comes off, I would not raise but just call."


We've got a mixup here. You were replying to the first hand, the K7 hand, and on that hand the turn card was a jack, not an ace. If it had been an ace, I would not have raised the turn. Not because I'd fear an ace in the bettors hand, but because I'd have less need to drive out the third player. His decision to fold or not is less likely to be affected by my raise, because if he hit the ace, he hit it, and if he didn't, then he's not going to take one off with, say, KQ, for one bet OR two bets, the type of hand I want to blast out on the turn, as the hand went down.


"On the second hand I like your preflop raise with pocket jacks."


Cool! lol


"On the flop, I like your bet with your second pair despite the ace-high board. However, when you get check-raised, I think you should just call."


And do what on the turn? Fold? Are you saying I should draw to a jack on the flop for one bet? Jim, I know our approaches are different in some aspects, but this is one area I struggle with and I'd much appreciate an explaination of your routine thought process here. It comes up so often. And all too often, I call the check-raise, and then he bets the turn, and I have no clue what to do. By reraising on the flop, I feel I have a much better chance of getting my money in right, or folding right, on the BB streets. And sometimes, they fold right there on the flop for the third bet.


"On the turn, when your lone opponent checks to you, I think you should step in and bet."


But this an imagined scenario. If I merely call his check-raise on the flop, he (meaning players in general through time) will almost always bet the turn. Now what?


"I compliment you on your ... game selection skills."


It's more like "town selection." But thanks anyway.


Tommy

Andy, "Why'd you leave the game?"


All the usual stuff. I was second on the must-move list, it was five minutes til the next dealer (and half-hour collection), one player in the main game was racking up and there was a reasonable chance that another would too. If I had been certain to get in another half-hour in the must-move game, I'd have stayed. That the new dealer was well timed to be on or near my big blind was the clincher.


Tommy

Andy, "[By the way, to those who might criticize us for discussing the play of a poker hand under the present circumstances, I think the terorists wanted us not to go on with our lives and we shouldn't let this happen; and I also find it therapeutic to think about things other than yesterday's horrifying events.]"


That's exactly why I went out, for therapy.


And reading your post made me realize that I've never stopped writing after an earthquake in Afghanistan.


Tommy

Jim, "king-seven suited is not a raising hand after three players limp in"


This is a classic case of "never wrong." I don't think it is ever wrong to fold or call with K7s in this spot. But does this automatically mean it is wrong to raise?


Let's say we have AA. No one would say it is "wrong" to raise. But does this mean it is automatically wrong to not raise?


Andy's words touch on most of the reasons I raise with these hands now and then:


"He's in the cut-off; by raising, he can buy the button and maybe eliminate a blind or two. By raising pre-flop, they're probably going to check to him on the flop, giving him the option of taking a free card or betting. It gives him control of the action, .... It seems to me a lot of potential benefits for the cost of one small bet."


That last sentence, especially. So much, for so little.


Odd that when I raise with a marginal hand from the cutoff when the timing feels right, the raise feels rational to me. But when I raise with the same hand on the button, it feels slightly like a gamble play, because one of the primary purposes of the raise, to buy the button, does not exist.


One reason I like cutoff raises is because of how much I don't like it when others do it. Let's say I was the third limper. The cutoff raises. I don't like it, at all. Now the momentum leader is on my left. Yuck. When I make the cutoff raise, I can see and hear the limpers to my right go, "darn." This happens so frequently. They will not get out of line on the flop, making them tremendously easier to read, as opposed to me limping behind, in which case many hands will get spunky on my right when checked to.


Let's say I'm on the button with a hand like 8-6, a hand I will always limp with behind a large, passive field. I don't think this is even marginal. It's a 100% play for me and I like the situation, a lot, as a long-range significantly +EV play. Now, the cutoff raises, and I'm out. Damn, an opportunity thwarted by one of those damn cutoff raises.


Another benefit of the cutoff raise into a large field is that my hand is drastically overrated in their minds. After all, who would raise a large field, without a real hand, and without the button? So, if the flop and betting allow me to retain the aggressor role, what happens is, players fold hands that they "shouldn't" fold. Even lose passive players do this. Say the flop comes J-x-x. Players with K-9 and A-10 and such, they will often fold for ONE bet, right on the flop, whereas, without the preflop raise, they would take one off for one bet, as usual. The pot is twice is big, and they are playing it exactly backwards. These are the folds that are not seen. But they sure add up, in my opinion.


Tommy

Jim: "I think you found a strange line-up of players. It sounds like all you have to do is to keep betting until the last player folds."


Me: "That's always the case, if you "keep betting" ONLY on those hands when they will fold. This session was a VERY rare case where I did exactly that."


Bad wording my me. My point here wasn't that I played especially well or anything like that. It was simply that, sometimes we flip heads ten times in a row. The danger is thinking that this makes us a good coin flipper.


Oh, but it's not a coin flip, because, by knowing the opponents and by reading them, and factoring in the pot-sizes and all that, the success of each "keep betting" rates to be greater than a 50-50 situation. Okay, so let's make it 70-30, or any other pick. There are times when it fails everytime, and times when it doesn't. Streaks are still flukes, and too easily misinterpreted as something else.


That said, the likelihood of a good streak of "keep betting" selection to occur is drastically enhanced by being last to act every time.


Tommy

I've read all the posts, All of them seem to make sense about how to K7s.But why would you be in this pot with K7. What are you trying to make?.If you catch a king u have a bad kicker, If you catch a 7 you're probably beat. Going for a flush? If all players call,including the blinds, you have five players in. the odds of making a flush with two suited cards preflop are 20 to 1. I'm gone before I get in trouble.It's possible that I play too tight, But it works for me

Tommy,


Semantics aside, what you call "second pair" is a lot stronger than what Jim calls "middle pair". If beat by top pair (just so I'm not misunderstood what I mean by top pair is when a player holds something like QJ to a board of J-8-3), second pair usually has five outs. Middle pair has only two.


BTW, around here any isolated pair that is lower than the top card on board is an underpair. Further description is provided when necessary.


Regards,


Rick

Tommy,


I agree with Jim that the default play for K7 suited in the cutoff after three limpers is to call (or even fold against tough limpers). But raising under the special circumstances you describe is fine for the reasons you and Andy mention.


A while back there was a thread titled "Defending against Tommy Angelo" (or something like that) concerning optimal play against you when you raise our blinds from late position or you are in the blind and we are on the attack (I think this was the gist of the thread and backdoor started it).


Anyway, if a top player is on the button and you raise in the cutoff I believe they are going to make some eye-opening three bets and calls. Is this a problem or are you that good at conniving those weak tight players to sit on your left?


Regards,


Rick

I remember Tommy saying that he always strive to have the tighest players on his left, and that these players also prefer to be on his left. I would assume Tommy would not be raising from the cut-off if he knew the button was thinking at the level you describe.

I'm not so sure the more the merrier. Small blind might fold K-8, for example. Also, the way Tommy plays, he wins a lot of hands when everyone folds, so I think he would benefit more from fewer opponents than the average player. What's a speculative drawing hand for me might play very differently for Tommy.


I would also have bet the turn,as I said. I think there is a case for checking as Tommy did, but I think your argument for betting is stronger.

"sometimes we flip heads ten times in a row. The danger is thinking that this makes us a good coin flipper."


Great turn of phrase.

Jim, he's raising in position for a number of reasons.

First of which, IMO, he is giving other players a chance to make

many mistakes later at a low cost to himself.


No, It's either fold or raise here.


Regards


Mike N

On the first question, a pocket pair of sixes would be an underpair to ace-king-queen.


On the second question, a pocket pair of sixes would a pocket pair with two overcards on the table. I suppose the obscure term "third pair" could be conjured up to mean a pocket pair higher than bottom pair but lower than middle pair but this is really unknown where I play.


On the third question, AA would be an overpair to a flop of x-x-x.


Here is how it works. Take a flop of Q-9-2.


An overpair would be AA or KK.


Top pair would be any hand containing a queen except QQ, Q9, or Q2. With QQ you would have top set. With Q9 you would have the top two pair. With Q2 you would have top and bottom pair.


A second pair would be JJ or TT.


Middle pair would be any hand containing a nine except Q9, 99, or 92. With 99 you would have middle set. With 92 you would have the bottom two pair.


Bottom pair would be any hand containing a deuce except Q2, 92, or 22. With 22, you would have bottom set.

What is the difference between having a set and having trips? (For HPFAP fans - the definition in their glossary is imprecise and not really accurate)


What is the difference between having your hand get counterfeited versus having your hand get overcoated?

On the second hand, when you are check-raised on the flop and if you just call, what you do once the turn comes depends upon what the turn card is and what your opponent does. Your opponent may not bet the turn. See Dan Z's post where he check-raised a flop bet but then dogged it on the turn. Your opponent might well do the same especially if he was drawing. If a blank comes on the turn AND your opponent leads into you, then you should probably fold against normal people.


I don't know what you mean by an "imagined scenario". Based on what you stated in your post, your opponent did, in fact, show weakness by checking to you on fourth. Nothing "imagined" about that. When an opponent shows weakness you should bet. The weak hands outnumber the strong ones.

Dancer, you play just fine. Some players like to play their position more than their cards and they try to take advantage of an "image" they believe they have created. In general, I believe king-little suited (except king-nine suited or higher because of the straight possibility as well as additional high card strength) is a fold for a full bet in most full-tabled limit holdem games when playing with strangers and/or sane players. I think your style of play works for most people. Once in awhile, a good player like Tommy will "jump the fence" in an attempt to take advantage of special circumstances which he outlined in his post.

if i have A-9 and board is


A-9-T--4--T


then i got overcoated or counterfieted?


i know what counterfiet is in omaha.

You got overcoated. The open pair of tens "overcoats" your pair of nines so anyone with an ace has the same hand you do and someone with ace-jack, ace-queen, or ace-king now has you beat.

A set, at least where I play, means you have a pocket pair and the third card of your rank is on the board.


Trips was originally short for triplets and meant three of a kind no matter how you have them. In hold 'em, we don't hear the word much, but it usually refers to a pair on board with the 3rd card of the appropriate rank in your hand.

Home game terms:


when you make a flush on the turn, having the river card come another flush card that beats you:


Getting flushed down the toilet. This is especially true if the opponent flush card is not a high card.


When you have an overpair and someone hits their two outs underpair (to yours) card:


Getting kicked in the crotch.


Maybe these won't take off.


Zealot

You are right. A set means you have a pocket pair. If you have a set of fours then no else can have three fours. But when you have trip fours someone else may have trip fours as well.

Gotcha. The distinction I didn't catch the first time around is that "middle pair" is different than "second pair." Your way covers everything and that's good. If it doesn't take hold as universal usage I suspect it's because middle-pair and second-pair sound like they could be describing the same thing.


Tommy

"I don't know what you mean by an "imagined scenario". Based on what you stated in your post, your opponent did, in fact, show weakness by checking to you on fourth. Nothing "imagined" about that."


The imagined part is Jim's apparent presumption that the opponent would have checked the turn if I had merely called his check-raise. It's quite possible, and I think likely, that he would have bet the turn in the scenario, and that the reason he checked the turn was because I reraised on the flop.


Tommy

"But raising under the special circumstances ...


... if a top player is on the button"


Then it is not a special circumstance in which a raise is reasonable.


"are you that good at conniving those weak tight players to sit on your left?"


Generally, I just sit in the one seat and the weak-tight players find their way to my left, by choice. No conniving required!


Tommy

"What are you trying to make?"


1) Them check


2) Them be readable


3) Me unreadable (or rather, less readable)


4) My hand misrepresented


Here's the type of scenerio where the prelop raise makes a huge difference. I have K7 and the board comes J-7-6. An early player has A-7 and the player on my right has 9-8. Without the preflop raise, it's two bets to me on the flop and I fold. With the preflop raise, the A7 checks, and it's two bets back to him on the flop, and he folds.


Tommy

(n/t)

Tommy,


I'd like to apologize for critizing K7 play. Like Jim Brier said, you play at a much higher level than I. I've gambled every day of my life and love the rush I get from it. As a result, since I always need to have the adrenalin flowing, I am always playing in games that are too high for my bankroll. And because of that I can't play the game you play.I am very consertive. I Consider you one of the best players on this forum and always read your posts.If I played at a lower level I could perhaps play more like you. I had no right to post a critizing post.


Sorry.


Dancer

"I had no right to post a critizing post."


Dancer,


You have every right to be critical of other people's play here. That is what this forum is for. If you just sit by silently, you won't learn nearly as much if you "criticize" other people's play, especially if you think those players play better than you -- they will point out what you may have missed, or you might even be right and they will be grateful for the chance to learn something from you. You will learn far more here by posting and having others respond to your analysis and questions, rather than if you just sit on your duff and wonder why a seemingly strong player made such a boneheaded move.

Dancer: "I had no right to post a critizing post. Sorry."


The only one who owes an apology is me. You asked a legit question, "what were you trying to make?" and I knew you meant what 'hand' was I trying to make, yet I wrote a snitty reply, using the dual meaning of "make" to sidestep your question.


"I had no right to post a critizing post. Sorry."


It is the nature of online forums to speak up when in disagreement. You and I share that right equally. I feel like my game, meaning every facet of it, not just betting, has improved tremendously since coming to 2+2, due to exactly two things: having my thoughts clarified by writing them out, and having them scrutinized by peers. And by peers, I mean, anyone who bothers to type.


Unrelated: Given your name, I think you might enjoy this stanza by Jesse Winchester:


If the wheel was fixed

I'd still take the chance

It I'm treading on thin ice

I might as well dance


Tommy