Now what.

[1800GAMBLER]

.5/1 ladbrokes, i have $180, closest is $140 who isn't in the hand. loose-passive weak players 6 handed

i limp in MP with JQo after 1 limper rest of the table come along.

2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] I have no hearts.

BB bets the min $1, caller, i raise to $10.

Button goes all in for $14, BB calls.

I raise it up to $40, he calls again.

Pot is ~$110

Turn:

7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

BB now goes all for his last $50.

Now what?

[1800GAMBLER]

All i know is the player is very loose, i haven't been at the table long enough to see how aggressive he's been, but it's seems closer to the passive side.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

My best guess is that you are beat. proceed accordingly.

al

[1800GAMBLER]

Figured the same. I folded. Got to see his hand due to the all in.

4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Any comments on the play before that? I'm waiting for the first reply that i overplayed my hand due to it's obvious the caller knew i'd raise him again and wasn't fearing me.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

there really wasn't any point in raising him again if you KNEW he would call... UNLESS...

you were pretty sure he was drawing and wanted to CHARGE HIM to try and beat you.

So I figured you figured he was drawing and wanted to charge him, thus I skipped the chastizing and casting out part.... As for what he actually had, go figure. It sure looked like he paid to draw to the flush, and got there. Sometimes people are tricky tho and you are simply wrong, it happens to the best of us. I really don't think you played it badly, which is why I didn't bring it up earlier. Obviously my read was the same as yours.

al

[ZeeJustin]

You are overplaying this hand. In a .50/1 NL game, you should never have to risk $90 with top pair, susceptible to 3 overpairs, or 2 higher kickers.

Maybe I'm overestimating the players at ladbrokes, but against any competant opponents, this would be a series of win-small, lose-big plays.

[Guy McSucker]

I don't think it's obvious the caller knew he'd get raised again. The button made an under-raise all-in and in my games you would't be allowed to make another raise.

Even in those online sites which allow this sort of thing lots of players don't do it for one reason or another. (Of course there's nothing wrong with making that raise if the software lets you.)

But anyway, I don't think it's obvious that you'll reraise.

Guy.

[Jon Matthews]

The button made an under-raise all-in and in my games you would't be allowed to make another raise.

Yeah, Ladbrokes don't seem to mind about the rules that much. Kind of silly, on the 0.5/1 NL table, say, if you want to min bet on the flop it's $1 but if you want to min bet on the turn or river it's $2 - they have the underlying limit structure programming poking through the curtains!

Not that I do it much but in late in tournaments there with large blinds it's the same. It's nice to be able to throw down one large blind as a feeler bet sometimes, it could be 25% of your stack after all, but you can't after the flop.

Jon

[Guy McSucker]

Yeah, Ladbrokes don't seem to mind about the rules that much

Good lord. I thought the under-raise thing was just about the only point where these programmers could get big-bet wrong, but your example shows me just how wrong I was.

Next you will be telling me that two pair beats a flush on Ladbrokes. (Except in lowball).

Guy.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
there really wasn't any point in raising him again if you KNEW he would call... UNLESS...

you were pretty sure he was drawing and wanted to CHARGE HIM to try and beat you.



[/ QUOTE ]

Or that i am leading and want to put more money in the pot.