Re: 56s - at a passive table, did I play this too hard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really hope you aren't folding to action on the flop with 4 to the flush. Odds-wise, it's almost ALWAYS incorrect to fold. Maybe not push as hard on a paired board, but incorrect to fold most often.

True, you can push out gutshot draws, but that isn't the purpose of the 3-bet, it's a by-product. You have UTG trapped in between, raise it up.

Yes, you lose a LOT of money when the board doesn't pair and there is only 3 to the flush on board, and you lose to a higher flush. But that happens pretty rarely. If you recognize it, you can slow down a little, but not on the flop with small bets. Get as many as you can in there any way you can with more than one other player in the hand.

How does it go, you are putting in 33% of the money with 35% pot equity? A guaranteed 2% ROI over time. Moreso with 3 others in the pot. Something like that.

And that is also why you can never get a flush draw to fold. They aren't afraid of straights, and they aren't afraid of trips, unless the board pairs. Then they have to slow down.

Almost always push your 4-flush draws on the flop.

nh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the pot has to be big enough right? Just to see the turn my outs give me about 4 against 1 of hitting. Sure it's about 2 against 1 if I see the turn and river for free, but that's likely not going to happen.

Re: 56s - at a passive table, did I play this too hard?
 

Thanks for the advise.


Results below:
UTG has Ts Ks (one pair, kings).
Hero has 5d 6d (two pair, sixes and fives).
Outcome: Hero wins 13.20 BB.

Re: 56s - at a passive table, did I play this too hard?
 

*grunch*

Fold preflop. Small suited connectors from middle position are bad. You said it's passiv. If it's loose, you can play a little looser (i still wouldn't play 65s from MP). When people tend to fold to action though, that hurts your implied odds. That makes playing 65s from MP worse.

On the flop you have a flushdraw and a small pair. You could have up to 14 outs to 2pair or better. That assumes, BB doesn't have Kings up already or a kicker matching one of your cards. With the 3bet there is only a true chance to fold the button. I think you are too optimistic to fold BB who check-raised (!!! not a truely passive move) you (he could be pumping one of these higher flush-draws you are so afraid of) and UTG who has already called two cold. Since you still have plenty of outs and BB could be check-raising TP with a good kicker and not a flush draw, I think the 3bet has some value with 2 callers.

BB donks into you on the turn. That smells like a set or Kings up. Without a read I would not think my 5s are outs, really. Therefore I'd check behind on the river.

Since BB seems to (semi-)bluff bet the turn against a cold-caller and an 3bettor, I'd take a note. Since you probably didn't know that at the time, I'd still check behind.

Re: 56s - at a passive table, did I play this too hard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Love all of it. Hands like this are fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

even calling preflop with 65s from middle position? The rest of the hand is ok. But I think preflop is not such a good idea even on a loose table. please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Re: 56s - at a passive table, did I play this too hard?
 

at a table such as the one described in this post, the limp is fine. he said it rarely ever got raised before the flop, and he already has 3 limpers in before him. sure, the hand is better in even later position, but this is fine.

as long as this doesn't get raised behind us too often, we're in a good spot.

if everyone folds behind us, we have the best position in a multiway pot with a good multiway hand.

if a couple more people call behind us, we don't have the best position but we're now in a very multiway pot with a hand that is going to be very profitable when we hit.

if you could guarantee me the flop goes 5-way, unraised, i'm limping this utg.