Sklansky 80/160 -Why did you call?

A rock open-raised UTG and "UTG + 1" calls right behind. The guy

in UTG + 2 folds. David calls from UTG + 3.


Flop comes 334 - with two diamonds. UTG bet, UTG +1 raises, David smooth calls, UTG

reraises, UTG + 2 reraises, and David caps it!


The turn is a Q - UTG player bets, UTG +1 raises, David 3 bets, ..... pot gets capped!


River is a blank - and both players check to david and call his bet.

UTG had pocket Queens and turned a full house, UTG + 2 had pocket 44 and flopped a full house, David flopped quad 3's and won a huge pot!


Now David played it perfect ONCE the flop comes.

However, from all I've read in the 2+2 books there were two mistakes made.


UTG +1 should fold pocket fours (44) against a raise from UTG rock.


UTG + 3 (David) should fold pocket threes (33) against a raise from an UTG rock plus 1 cold caller. You almost know you are beat in two spots and may be raised from behind and maybe even capped. The books say you need a minimum of 4 callers in front with NO RAISE, right?


I admit I have made the same play before and won the pot by flopping a set, but doesn't this go against what you and Mason say in your books? This is NOT criticism of the play, but it is quite CONFUSING.

Please explain why you made this play.


(a) To vary your play


(b) You felt like if you called, then many others would trail in behind you.


(c) You weren't expecting to be reraised from behind


(d) You felt like your call may buy you the button if others behind you folded and you could outplay the two opponents in front of you.


NICE HAND DAVID!!


All comments appreciated!

He has an image that he won't call with 4-9o either, does he cold call with that too moron.

Sklansky is viewed as tight and calculating. Therefore, people are more inclined to put him on a set of hands, rather than a bluff. His greatest value comes when A) he knows what other people think he has, B) he has something different, and C) he has something.


With 49o, Sklansky cannot make a hand that would enable him to take advantage of the combination of his opponents' probable holdings and actions, and what they think he has. Being misread is no use when you have nothing.


Who wouldn't put Sklansky on, like middle suited connectors or something here? Given what he would call with, there are a number of flops that theoretically wouldn't hit his opponents, but which they would figure to hit him, and would chekc to him, doubling his outs. It's a combination of players and position.


He is almost strong enough statistically with 33o, but he gets way out ahead by not holding either of the groupings of hands he is expected to be holding. He doesn't need a set to win, just information ahead, and a good raising opportunity on the flop, which will possibly buy him a free turn and river because he is David Sklansky. Or, if the board is right, he can bluff someone out, because Sklanksy doesn't bet out under pairs.


It is obvious that you want to call with a hand 1) that will play well after the flop, and 2) will also play itself should it happen to hook up - giving you two outs, again, because you are David Sklansky. You could just as well have pointed out, if I stated that he bet middle pair because the opponent looked weak, that oh, I guess that means he would bet 23o-no-pair if his opponent looked weak, moron.


Yes, it is possible Sklansky made an error, or was working on some information that has not been made available, or that the dictates of his writings have been misineterpreted, or that I am an idiot. But the most obvious answer is that he knew he could manhandle these particular opponents from late position, and that being David Sklansky creates unique opportunities for him at the smae tiem as it takes some away - such as perhaps betting for value with your standard top pair when good cards hit.


And of course it would be too expensive to carry it to the extreme of sticking his neck out by raising 33o, because he would rather have more players in the pot, and not be put on a pair, or something. But what do I know, I just shot out a one-line guess! You didn't even take a guess on Sklansky, you just took a shot at me, and crashed and burned to the extent 49o is not as strong as 33o because when a 9 hits they will put him on a pair and/or have a better kicker, and if his 4 pairs he will lose.


eLROY

Nicee explanation elroy, but it might be simply that

with 3 players in early(although its raised), he

simply expectd more players to come in behind

with little chance of a reraise. Hopefully he'll

reply.

Didn't Sklansky used to play 83 like it was aces? I think Roy Cooke said something about this a few issues ago.


And isn't 94a touch better than 83? /images/smile.gif

You're right elroy, he doesn't need a set, he's just going to outplay QQ with threes. He is Sklansky after all and he can do anything. Maybe he'll come down from the mountain with some justification along the lines of varying his play etc etc, but think he's happy on Mt. Olympus right now.


But your cavelier assessment of his play annoyed me. Tough.

I strongly suspect his reasons were both b and c. Another reason for David to call here is that his implied odds are great if one or more of these players are aggressive, and that is probably the case. Another small reason is that his cards are a bit more likely to be live, but this is of little significance.

Anyway the guy who made the bad play of calling the raise with pocket fours is the whole reason that David ended up winning this huge pot since David would have folded without the extra player in the pot.


Kris

Glad to hear that Sklansky shares a leak with me. I simply can't stand folding a pocket pair, watching the set come in and seeing everyone else bombarding the pot with chips all of which should be mine :-).


Seriously, this is a long term bad call. But I generally make it to (a) put someone on tilt when I make the set and (b) avoid putting myself on tilt when the set comes when my cards are already in the muck. But ya, it's not a good call. It's marginal at best if you expect a few other guys to also smoothcall.


If I fold KQ to a raise and the flop comes AJT, it doesn't bother me at all. But if I fold 33 and the flop comes AT3, I will be steaming for the next hour. Stupid...I know...but that's the way it is for me.

I guess I'm getting in on this a little late and haven't read the other posts, but here's the way you should look at these situations. First it is 7.5-to-1 to flop a set. Sometimes your set will get beat, so you need a little better than this to play a small pair for your call to be correct. Perhaps 9-to-1 is about right. So David has to put in 2 small bets when he calls. If he can anticipate winning 18 (small) bets assuming he flops a set and his hand holds up then I would agree with the call. Notice that in this hand there is already a little more than 5 small bets in the pot (including the blinds who are yet to act). If David can anticipate perhaps one or two more callers before the flop, plus some good action on the flop, his call is clearly correct.


I wasn't in the game and don't know what David anticipated. But it's clear to me that he should at least get close to this since the before the flop raiser may auto-bet the flop.


Now tell the truth Bob, when have you thrown two treys away. (Just kidding.)


By the way, against two hyper aggressive players when one raises and the other just calls, I believe that any pair can be playable even if you knew that everyone else would fold before the flop. I'm talking here about the kind of players who can cap the flop with virtually nothing. Of course you won't run into these guys very often, but this this situation does occasionally occur.

Best wishes,

Mason

yes it does and sometimes they both have AK..gl

So Mason you're telling me that I have been playing perfect all these years!

And just think, I thought I was just a lucky loose aggressive player!


You made my day :-)

Thanks


P.S. I really do think you're pushing the envelope on this play but yes, I have done it many times but usually on the losing side. Maybe I'm NOT as lucky as Sklansky :-)

"I have done it many times but usually on the losing side."


Well yes, you are suppose to lose on this play the vast majority of the time because you only flop a set every now and then. However, when that set does come (and hold up) you make up for all the loses because you win a very big pot.


I'm not sure if you've been playing perfect all these years but many calls like this (with the pair) are correct. Hopwever they are not correct with other hands that many people will incorrectly evaluate as being equivalent to a small pair. In this spot the small pair has gone up in value, while a connecting type hand may have gone down. Part of the reason for this is that if you flop a draw they may punish you with lots of action on the flop and turn making it very expensive to hit it. With the set you welcome this action.