At a loss: 99 UTG
 

.25/.50 nl hold'em 6-handed

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

MP ($26.57)
CO ($49.90)
Button ($40.68)
SB ($77.55)
BB ($129.40)
Hero ($43.47)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB posts a blind of $0.25.
<font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $2</font>, MP calls $2, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>.

Flop: ($4.75) 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $3</font>, MP calls $3.

Turn: ($10.75) K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP bets $5</font>, Hero folds.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

Looks totally find to me.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

You need reads to play poker. PF is fine. I like to bet something like 3.5 instead of 3. In my experience it works so much better, and it's only .5 more. That's nitpicking though. 2/3 pot turn and fold to a raise. If you get called, don't even bother with a river blocker, just check/fold. You get a lot of folds on the turn, the king card could be scary to villian.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I definately think this line is losing money.
preflop:
-everyone folds. I make 75 cents.
-someone makes a small reraise. Do I call? Now I'm afraid of most flops, and could just be screwed, hands down.
-someone makes a big reraise. I lay this down, right?
-I get called by more than one player. This is probably the best scenario.

I get one caller, and make the continuation bet on this flop.
-If he folds, I've bet a total of $5 to make 2.75, minus rake.
-If he reraises it's an obvious fold
He calls.
-Now what? Checking shows obvious weakness here and he will surely bet.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

So how would You play the hand?

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
You need reads to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy had just sat down. Had been there about 1 orbit.

[ QUOTE ]
2/3 pot turn and fold to a raise. If you get called, don't even bother with a river blocker, just check/fold. You get a lot of folds on the turn, the king card could be scary to villian.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think he'll fold often enough that a 2/3 pot bet is +EV? Or that he'll call with a hand that's losing to me?

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
So how would You play the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I played it, but I hate it. I'm at a loss.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

Ahh.. OK [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

IMO the play is fine but I see your point.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
I definately think this line is losing money.
preflop:
-everyone folds. I make 75 cents.
-someone makes a small reraise. Do I call? Now I'm afraid of most flops, and could just be screwed, hands down.
-someone makes a big reraise. I lay this down, right?
-I get called by more than one player. This is probably the best scenario.

I get one caller, and make the continuation bet on this flop.
-If he folds, I've bet a total of $5 to make 2.75, minus rake.
-If he reraises it's an obvious fold
He calls.
-Now what? Checking shows obvious weakness here and he will surely bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, on the bright side, while you may steal the blinds, or take down the pot with a continuation bet, or may flop an overpair, you also get four cards to try to spike a well concealed set.

If you feel so bad about raising 99 UTG, then limp and play for set value alone.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
I definately think this line is losing money....
I get one caller, and make the continuation bet on this flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

If caller is SB or BB, you won't have to make a continuation bet because you'll have position.

Your argument may well be valid, and I usually limp 99 UTG (full ring, don't know about 6max), but the reason is position. I'll raise 99 on the button all day long.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument may well be valid, and I usually limp 99 UTG (full ring, don't know about 6max), but the reason is position. I'll raise 99 on the button all day long.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 6-max I raise 99 in an unraised pot about 80% of the time (100% in CO or on Button) becasue it figures to be the best hand. If paint hits the flop I can make a run at the pot with a strong continuation bet.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I'm having the same problem with mid pairs OOP. I've got a post going too right now, I know what you mean itjust doesn't seem right.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

Your play is fine. At higher levels any thinking villain is going to bet that turn after you showed weakness. I bet villain folds greater than 50% of the time if you c/r that turn.

With 99, betting out a flop with an A or K (and firing a 2nd bullet on the turn occasionally) will get some better hands to fold. If an A flops and you get raised, you can fold.

88-JJ are the toughest hands for me to play in 6-max. You really have to have a feel for the table to decide whether playing for set value or as the best pre-flop hand is the way to go. Remember, most donks put you on AK whenever you raise so there are actually 10 cards which potentially help you win this hand on the flop when you are heads up.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
...so there are actually 10 cards which potentially help you win this hand on the flop when you are heads up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which 10 cards? Aces, Kings and?

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I like to pot this flop, so that if he calls I know he is much more likely to have a hand, rather than two overs. The K probably makes no difference to villain, so I might fire again here.

Villain could easily have 77- here, as this is a nice flop to call a CB with a mid pair kinda thing, because you might have big cards and no J.

Fire again on the turn *representing* AK and you win the pot a good amount of time. If he calls/raises here, then you shut up shop. Pot the flop, 2/3 on the turn seems good in this situation.

Of course, if villain is a calling station, then check/fold is good.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...so there are actually 10 cards which potentially help you win this hand on the flop when you are heads up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which 10 cards? Aces, Kings and?

[/ QUOTE ]

Aces, kings and nines.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

That's 8 cards is'nt it? If he hold 2 of the nines.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's 8 cards is'nt it? If he hold 2 of the nines.

[/ QUOTE ]

You hold 99. The 10 cards that help are the 4 Aces, 4 kings and 2 remaining nines.

You can discount by one (maybe) if you think villain holds either an Ace or King but the fact that he doesn't re-raise means that if he has one (more likely he has Axs), he doesn't like his kicker.

Just something else to think about, I think your play up to the turn was standard. However, I think you have to bet the turn to win this hand any a competent villain.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I like this line here. 99 isnt a great holding on its own. The J on the flop is a bit of a scare. The K on the turn is much more so. There is no reason here to think that you have the best hand. Good laydown.

The thing with 99 is that its a pretty easy hand to fall in love with. But really, with 2 overcards on the board, 99 is only marginally better than 33 if your set doesnt hit. If you can lay it down easily, its a great hand. It will only cause a little loss but when it hits, it'll pay off huge.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

True, so very true. I did'nt know what I was thinking, maybe that I "had" AK and therefore it's 6 aces and kings in the deck.

I was wrong - you were right.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I've thought a lot about it... How about betting 1.50 instead of $2. This is more likely to get multiway, and 99 will do very well vs 2-3 callers on a low flop or if I flop trips. Thoughts on this?

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I always raise 4xbb+1bb/limper.

I think sticking to 3xbb is not good at all. Because if you do it here I guess you "have to" do that with other hands as well where 4xbb is a better sum to raise.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've thought a lot about it... How about betting 1.50 instead of $2. This is more likely to get multiway, and 99 will do very well vs 2-3 callers on a low flop or if I flop trips. Thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you scale your raises according to hand quality, your cards will become completely transparent to a thinking opponent.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've thought a lot about it... How about betting 1.50 instead of $2. This is more likely to get multiway, and 99 will do very well vs 2-3 callers on a low flop or if I flop trips. Thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Very important post, I think all serious NL-players will always raise the same ammount (depending of number of limpers, not depending on the hands).

I more often see people stick to this at higher levels than at lower levels. The downside to mix up the raiseammount is just much bigger than the upside.

Of course, for players playing VERY high stakes as 25/50 and above I it's a different story.

If you scale your raises according to hand quality, your cards will become completely transparent to a thinking opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I don't think this is true. My bets range from 3-5bb and I bet very few hands consistently the same way. 4bb is the norm for me, but I think that sometimes situations call for a different bet. This may be an example, bet here's another: 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on the button with 3 limpers, 6-handed. Here I'm going to raise more than my standard, because 78s does very well multiway and people are going to expect something more conventional (TT-AA, AK, AQ) if I raise this way. Furthermore, I raise a lot more often preflop than other people do (I am pretty LAG). So if I'm making a mistake here it's a big one. Can I get more discussion on this?

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

Ive tried to start a thread about exactly this but without responses, I will try to bump it again.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've thought a lot about it... How about betting 1.50 instead of $2. This is more likely to get multiway, and 99 will do very well vs 2-3 callers on a low flop or if I flop trips. Thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that I want 99 in a multiway pot unless you are set farming. It is a good hand to play heads up and I think a 'normal' sized is appropriate.

99 is not really a drawing hand and as such I usually like to try to price out drawing hands.

I will caveat that how I play 88-JJ is totally table and level dependent. This is the type of hand that can be profitable unimproved, if you are playing against thinking players who respect your raises. Against a table full of LAGs or maniacs I like limping and playing for set value better.

I would love to hear what TWP, Ghaz, xorbie and Bobbo think as they play at the higher end of the SSHE spectrum.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

Well, I am LAG and my raises don't get that much respect.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I am LAG and my raises don't get that much respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you tried to switch things up and play tight for a session or two. At the $50 level I think you will notice a huge different. Don't get me wrong, I've seen plenty of LAGs do quite well in NL $100 and especially NL $200, but being able to play multiple styles is a very useful tool (that is probably worthy of its own thread---I will start one.)

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

I have a lot of trouble playing well, TAG. I get impatient and I'm not sure how to play a tight game properly preflop. I would very much appreciate a discussion of good TAG strategy.

Re: At a loss: 99 UTG
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a lot of trouble playing well, TAG. I get impatient and I'm not sure how to play a tight game properly preflop. I would very much appreciate a discussion of good TAG strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way I started playing TAG was to only play top 10/15 hands in any position other than C/O and button. Fold AJ, AT, KJ, etc. Some people like to practice at the $10 or $25 level because there are so many maniacs that you can burn through a buy-in or two trying to get a good sense of when to lay down TPTK. I am not a TAG expert and will leave that to others more qualified to discuss.

My natural tendency was weak-tight, though I evolved into more a SLAG (closer to TAG, than LAG) 25/8/4 are the stats from last 15k hands or so.