Re: I think this was a good fold
 

[ QUOTE ]
And at the level that you are playing in, you need to get in and play more hands... Take a chance - it's poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? The antes are small; playing only premium hands is the way beat a game with this structure. I'm not saying the fold in this spot is necessarily correct, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Re: I think this was a good fold
 

I'd definitely play this hand on partypoker 5-10 and would probably raise. I think you are playing a little too tight for the ante structure if you're folding this. On the partypoker 20-40 I would fold though since the structure is so much tighter and the players are better.

Re: I think this was a good fold
 

Playing super tight like this is not going to produce optimum money. You have to be willing to mix it up a little at this level. The overall looseness and weakness of many players warrants that you get a little wd40 and loosen up that tightness a little, becasue i can here you squeaking all the way over here.

Good folds are good. And tehy will help turn you into a great player. But this is not one of those instances.

Re: I think this was a good fold
 

[ QUOTE ]
warrants that you get a little wd40 and loosen up that tightness a little, becasue i can here you squeaking all the way over here.


[/ QUOTE ]

This kinda made me laugh. Roland is WAY tight.

Don't you think responding 3 times to the same thread, constituting 25% of your posts is a little overboard? Especially when all 3 posts make the same point?

Re: I think this was a good fold
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd definitely play this hand on partypoker 5-10 and would probably raise. I think you are playing a little too tight for the ante structure if you're folding this. On the partypoker 20-40 I would fold though since the structure is so much tighter and the players are better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to clarify my post a little bit.. I'd be more inclined to fold if the guys who hold the ace and king are Loose aggressive type players. The problem with these guys is they could re-raise without aces of kings here and you'd be forced to fold because of the dead queen. If the players who hold the ace and king are loose passive or tight passive/aggressive, you don't have to worry about this.

Also, this is only a close call on tight ante structures.. On a looser structure you'd be making a big mistake folding here. I still think under most conditions you would make a profit by playing this hand even in a tight structure though.

I prefer to raise here because it knocks out players, and also defines your opponent's hands more. An ace with pocket 5s is less likely to get fancy when facing a raise. If you limp he might raise and you'd be forced to fold, but if you raise yourself he might fold the hand.

Also the better the players are at the table with the cards lower than queens, the more inclined you should be to fold, since you probably won't get much action from them which is where your profit comes from. But if the players are strong you'd be better off finding another table.

Re: I think this was a good fold
 

[ QUOTE ]
and his clubs are not that live.


[/ QUOTE ]

The liveness of the clubs makes very little difference here.

Re: I think this was a good fold
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have to be willing to mix it up a little at this level

[/ QUOTE ]

No, if there is a level where you can play uber tight (while not getting anted to death) and still get action it is 5/10 and 2/4

While this isn't a "bad" fold...I think it is a tad too tight.

Re: I think this was a good fold
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and his clubs are not that live.


[/ QUOTE ]

The liveness of the clubs makes very little difference here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jon, i thought folding pairs with two higher upcards and you have no overcard kicker was standard? What am I missing? In particular, who wants to play with a semi dead hand?

Re: I think this was a good fold
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, this is only a close call on tight ante structures.. On a looser structure you'd be making a big mistake folding here. I still think under most conditions you would make a profit by playing this hand even in a tight structure though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it's a close decision, and it mostly comes down to the temperament of the game and the quality of the opponents. My main point is that you aren't looking to play the hand against the overcards. Obviously the best case scenario is that you are called by a weaker pair, and not by the A or K. Other than that, the best you're hoping for is an ante steal. I agree that it's a close decision, but I like folding in spots like this.

If you hold a pair and you see two unduplicated overcards behind you yet to act, you're going to be up against a higher pair almost 30% of the time. (each has 3 "outs" to pair up, and 2 hole cards to do it in. 42 unseen cards: (3/42+3/41) * 2 = 29% ... multiplying by 2 is a rough way of doing it.) This doesn't take into account the various other hands (3 flushes, underpairs, etc.) which the A or K villians could play and/or reraise. Since it's generally good policy to fold to reraises by overcards (and to avoid playing pots against them in general) in a relatively tight structure, and you can expect said raise pretty often... it follows that raising into the two overcards isn't such an obviously great move.

(I claim no expertise in the math involved. Others here are way better at it than me, and I invite any and all corrections.)

Re: I think this was a good fold
 

This is an excellent fold Roland. You have the makings for a Vegas pro! I used to make these folds. Lately, I've been raising with this hand...LOL...I've gotten a little off my game lately.

Seriously, if the game is really, really tight. I raise with this hand and fold for the reraise. If it is averge to aggressive, I fold with it. I do not limp unless the game is super, super, super passive and nobody is punishing me. Well maybe I don't limp...I am not a limper, I am a raiser. Nah, no limping for me.