Playing the nuts: standard?

[Nate tha' Great]

Opponent is unknown as this was my first $200 NL session. I just want to make sure that the line I took isn't too passive given the stack sizes, a moderately draw-heavy board, etc.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $4 BB (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

saw flop|<font color="C00000">saw showdown</font>

<font color="C00000">Nate ($267.93)</font>
UTG ($944.80)
UTG+1 ($193.50)
MP1 ($203)
MP2 ($304)
<font color="C00000">CO ($182)</font>
Button ($299.40)
SB ($162.20)

Preflop: Nate is BB with 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
UTG calls $4, <font color="666666">2 folds</font>, MP2 calls $4, <font color="CC3333">CO raises to $15</font>, <font color="666666">2 folds</font>, Nate calls $11, UTG folds, MP2 folds.

Flop: ($40) 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
Nate checks, <font color="CC3333">CO bets $20</font>, Nate calls $20.

Turn: ($80) 3/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
Nate checks, <font color="CC3333">CO bets $60</font>, Nate calls $60.

River: ($200) 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">Nate bets $172.93 (All-In)</font>, CO calls $87 (All-In).

Final Pot: $459.93
<font color="green">Main Pot: $374, between Nate and CO.</font> &gt; <font color="white">Pot won by Nate ($374).</font>
<font color="green">Pot 2: $85.93, returned to Nate.</font>

Results in white below: <font color="white">
Nate shows 9h 9d (full house, nines full of threes).
CO shows 4c 4h (two pair, fours and threes).
Outcome: Nate wins $459.93. </font>

[riverboatking]

just so ya know you didn't have the nuts.

[fsuplayer]

With the flush draw out there I think you have to make them pay for hearts somehow.
The best way to do this varies by opponent, but a CR or leading into the raiser is the play here.

I hate to do it with such a monster of a hand, but I feel like I would at least make them pay for the hearts, even if they only have one.

I would prefer to lead out for about $30-35 here.
He will raise with almost any two cards here including overs, flush draws, or any other pocket pairs. This board does look like it hit anyone very hard, so he may put you on the hearts and bump it up.

Again, playing sets in raised pots are very player dependant. Some will back way off it you lead in, but stay aggressive with the hand if you CR, and vice versa.

I take the line you took once in a while, but usually dont like it afterwards, bc even if you are way ahead of red AA, if the heart falls on the turn, its tough to play it aggressively if he shows any strength, and you may have to give a cheap card for the fourth heart.



I really like your river play.
I love to lead out big on the end when I have a monster, it gets called alot more than it should, as in your case.
When I see the river, I sling the Party-Raise-Bar all in as fast as possible and they smell bluff and will call with lots of hands.

I know I rambled a lot, but its a very player dependant play.
I think though you should lead out most of the time.

FsuPlayer

Ps I havent yet tested the waters of PP $200 Max, how was the game(s)? And do you mind PM'ing me that guys screenname? I would love to follow him around! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
just so ya know you didn't have the nuts.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's safe to assume that somewhere along the way of logging 1500 posts, Nate has learned to read a Hold'Em board.

It's the nuts for all intensive purposes, esp. for the point of this discussion.


Since you felt the need to point out the discrepancy, care to let us know the difference between playing 33 here (the nuts), as opposed to the near mortal nuts which is 99?

FsuPlayer

[sniperd]

fsuplayer, well put.

[turnipmonster]

looks good to me. I think you should sometimes lead out on the flop, because if he does have a hand he'll probably raise you. you can then smooth call and either stop and go or checkraise allin on the turn. given that this guy is a complete fish, giving him enough rope is fine.

--turnipmonster

[theBruiser500]

I personally like check/raising the turn more than leading out on the river. When people lead out into me on the river it's almost always a value bet with a very strong hand. Also, if a heart comes he might be more reluctant to pay you off. But there's also that 3 that came on the turn, if you checkraise there you run the risk of getting him to fold because he thinks you have a 3. All and all, I just think check/raising the turn is just another option you might want to consider in the future, well played.

[DcifrThs]

Fsd,

play the 200max if you feel you're up to it...play isn't like the 25, but its definately some good games...people get attached to pots they try to buy early and continue to bluff at them...if you find somebody like that get position on him and stay there, he'll bluff his whole stack away.

similarly, there are other "regulars" whose play is reminiscent of an atomic clock. they wait and wait for big hands in loose games and never vary. you know where you're at 100% and most of 'em wont go ahead and call a big bet on the river no matter what unless they KNOW they're ahead. pulling a cheaper raise on them early with many outs will ensure you win the pot later unless you meet resistance indicating monster hand. pretty straightforward. in any case, good luck with your venture...

and stop your rambling lol...thats my job...
-Barron

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
play isnt like the 25 , but its definately some good games...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a relief, I get bad beated so many times on those tables, i just cant seem to ever beat those games... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

fsd

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally like check/raising the turn more than leading out on the river. When people lead out into me on the river it's almost always a value bet with a very strong hand. Also, if a heart comes he might be more reluctant to pay you off. But there's also that 3 that came on the turn, if you checkraise there you run the risk of getting him to fold because he thinks you have a 3. All and all, I just think check/raising the turn is just another option you might want to consider in the future, well played.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was potentially a dodgy line that I took, pushing on the river rather than check-raising the turn. I guess I was trying to take advantage of the fact that I was unknown to him; his bet size on the turn looks like an effort to push me off a draw, or maybe weak a hand like a pair of nines, and I was willing to play along with that perception and make an "improper" call, rather than flag the fact that I was representing a big hand. By the time that the river rolled around - well, at that point it's perfectly easy for him to compare his stack size to the pot, and I think I'm almost always going to get called as a bluff-catcher if a blank comes off. But of course there is the risk that a scare card comes off and kills my action - I suspect that this guy would have paid off regardless, but a tougher player might not.

[Nate tha' Great]

Yeah, I was doing very well in the 100NL game in maybe 15 table hours worth of play, which doesn't fly from a statistical significance standpoint but is enough to get a pretty good idea of game texture, and the 200NL didn't seem too much tougher.

As Barron suggests, it seems like a lot of the regulars have a sort of multiple personality disorder thing going on - they play too aggressively in the face of weakness, and too weakly in the face of aggression (strategically timed steals and re-steals can account for a LOT of profit in these games). It's NOT a sit-back-and-wait-for-the-nuts kind of game like the $25 or $50 might be, but even some relatively uncreative postflop play, paying ample attention to fundamentals like position, pot-commitment, and so forth, can go a long way IMHO.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
even some relatively uncreative postflop play, paying ample attention to fundamentals like position, pot-commitment, and so forth, can go a long way IMHO.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is more than some of those above referenced regulars understand. they might just get board after not playing hands and then go agressive in the wrong spots...who knows what drives 'em but i've been known to not care in the least so long as they make that game good to play. and by play i mean PLAY...you CANNOT sit and wait, you wont make a dime. one time there was one regular who took isolation too far. waaaaayyy too far, every time he passed MP and the loosey at the table (passive, just calls and calls no matter what as long as he doesn't have to call to much preflop) calls, he'd raise with anything slightly playable and just call or min raise with his real hands. i happened to be watching this in disgust as he was to my right and i kept getting dealt garbage. i wanted some of that loosey and he was gunna break him. bastard. so when he passed MP, loosey called, he raised to $16 i moved in. he thought and thought (obvious fold) and folded. very next hand, loosey calls, he raises to $16 i moved in. he thought longer (even more obvious fold) and folded. finally he got it, loosey called, HE folded, and I raised to isolate the loosey /images/graemlins/smile.gif and nobody was complaining ...

sometimes you just gotta put 'em in their place.

-Barron