On Golden Pond, but no catch
 

Absolute Poker, .10/.20 LHE, 6-Max

At a table full of fish last night, but made only a small profit. They played every hand, called every bet all the way to the showdown. Sounds like a dream, right? Unfortunately, at least one of them would suck out on the end, killing my monster hands.

I had 4 great hands in a row and raised with them preflop. The others never saw my hands because I mucked them when I lost on the showdown. One guy says "That's right moron, keep raising preflop!" They thought I was a maniac, though I was raising preflop with AA, KK, AK, and AQ.

Example: I'm UTG with AA and raise. UTG+1 reraises. Call, Call, Call, I cap. Flop is A T 2 rainbow and I bet my set of aces. Call, Call, Call, Call. Turn is 9. I bet, fold, Call, Call. River is 8, I bet and button raises. I make a crying call and button shows J7o for straight.

And on and on it went. A couple of times I bet TPTK, was called all the way down and was shown pocket Aces or Kings by preflop limper.

Should I adjust to this kind of play or just play the normal tight-aggressive style?

Re: On Golden Pond, but no catch
 

this is an example of the "schooling effect." individually, each player is making a mistake going to showdown. collectively(sp?) the players have many outs and as a group will often suck-out on you. the best hands for these types of games are high suited connectors; you wanna get a monster.

you should welcome the idiot who went to the river with a gutshot. TPTK runs into AA and KK; sheet happens. think long term. consider NL. stay TAG.

Re: On Golden Pond, but no catch
 

[ QUOTE ]
They played every hand, called every bet all the way to the showdown. Sounds like a dream, right? Unfortunately, at least one of them would suck out on the end, killing my monster hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's poker, not chess. In a soft game, every 100 hands an expert might win 5 BB +- 25 BB. That means it would take 2500 hands for breaking even to be 1 standard deviation below average (about 1 in 6), and 10,000 hands for breaking even to be 2 standard deviations below average (about 1 in 40).

You made a profit in far fewer hands. I'm not saying you were lucky, but you don't have much to complain about. At more substantial stakes, you will not be able to win nearly as frequently or as much.

[ QUOTE ]

They thought I was a maniac, though I was raising preflop with AA, KK, AK, and AQ.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you were raising with much more than that. Don't be discouraged by the results. Punish loose players by raising with hands that would be overlimps or folds against tight players.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm UTG with AA and raise. UTG+1 reraises. Call, Call, Call, I cap. Flop is A T 2 rainbow and I bet my set of aces. Call, Call, Call, Call. Turn is 9. I bet, fold, Call, Call. River is 8, I bet and button raises. I make a crying call and button shows J7o for straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should 3-bet the river for value because a weaker hand like TPTK or 2-pair or a set is much more likely than a straight. You would have an easy call of the cap, not a crying call.

[ QUOTE ]

Should I adjust to this kind of play or just play the normal tight-aggressive style?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you should adjust (see SSHE), but the normal tight-aggressive style crushes this game, too. It just doesn't get full value.

Re: On Golden Pond, but no catch
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is an example of the "schooling effect." individually, each player is making a mistake going to showdown. collectively(sp?) the players have many outs and as a group will often suck-out on you.

[/ QUOTE ]
The schooling effect would mean that even though some of your opponents are making mistakes to call, you don't want them to call, since the incorrect calls benefit the strong draws and hurt you. That's not the case here.

Even though the percentage of pots won decreases when you have more opponents with AA or AK, your average profit increases as the number of loose opponents increases.

[ QUOTE ]
the best hands for these types of games are high suited connectors; you wanna get a monster.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a common misconception. High pocket pairs are much better. See PokerRoom's stats.

[ QUOTE ]
you should welcome the idiot who went to the river with a gutshot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Calling 3 cold, yes. Calling on the flop with nothing, yes. However, the turn call was correct and not welcome.

[ QUOTE ]
consider NL.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's a bad response to a suckout. Suckouts still happen in NL, and it can be very frustrating to build up a huge stack and lose it after you get your money in as the favorite.

There are still many fish in NL, but calling stations get destroyed rapidly and move on. You want calling stations in your game. Don't change games to avoid the bad players who make the game profitable.

Re: On Golden Pond, but no catch
 

Example: I'm UTG with AA and raise. UTG+1 reraises. Call, Call, Call, I cap. Flop is A T 2 rainbow and I bet my set of aces. Call, Call, Call, Call. Turn is 9. I bet, fold, Call, Call. River is 8, I bet and button raises. I make a crying call and button shows J7o for straight.

This hand was played badly. You did not protect your hand.
It is clear you have not read SSHE (Small Stakes Hold 'Em)
by Ed Miller (see books on this site). You must learn to
bet your hands and draws correctly; this may mean check
raising instead of leading, etc.

See the chapters on Protecting your Hand, Building Large
Pots before the Flop and When the Pot is Extremely Large.

It took me awhile to really understand the true meaning of
protecting your hand. It really means "forcing your opponents
to call/play unprofitably". The shocker is YOU DO NOT CARE
IF THEY CALL OR NOT when you have forced them to make
mistakes.

If I bet 00 at roulette for infinity, those huge pots I win mean
nothing compared to the larger sum of bets that I have lost.

The casino loves when people put their money in taking the
worst of it...you should too. It's just an odds game using cards.

Good Luck. Merry Christmas!

P.S. Anyone who says move up or play no limit is to be
ignored - they severely understand the very fundamentals
of poker.

-ZEN

Re: On Golden Pond, but no catch
 

[ QUOTE ]

This hand was played badly. You did not protect your hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. There are 12 BB in the pot already on the flop, you can't protect your hand even if there was somebody to checkraise, which there isn't since you have the lead and the only other guy likely to bet is directly to your left. OP just kept hammering away with the value bets with the nuts, which is exactly what he should have been doing. He played this hand perfectly, except possibly the river.

For OP: in superloose games, loosen up when it comes to drawing hands, and tighten up when playing hands that make TPTK. AQo isn't worth much in this sort of game, and AJo is pretty much trash, but suited aces, suited connectors, and small-medium pairs are goldmines.

Re: On Golden Pond, but no catch
 

Calling my post ridiculous and convincing a newer
poster that hammering value bets "like he should
be doing" is a bit irresponsible.

You would bet out, with UTG+1's strength, with top set
on this board? This is debatable.

My advice for learning how to protect your hands
is both the spirit and the validity of my post. By
shrugging off my advice - albeit debatable - you
encourage OP to ignore the rest of the post I took
the time to type - which is NOT debatable.

The problem with advancing in poker is that we
tend to forget how the types of games we started
in (micro/low limit) actually run. For this reason
I play, everyday, a few hundred µLHE/LLHE games
to remain in tune with these games.

My advice is far from perfect. My analysis may be
off and I actually misread the OPs post (thought the
RR came from his right) in this case.

What you have to say about dominated offsuit hands
and suited aces/kings/connecters is very correct.

Merry Christmas.

-ZEN

Re: On Golden Pond, but no catch
 

[ QUOTE ]
For OP: in superloose games, loosen up when it comes to drawing hands, and tighten up when playing hands that make TPTK. AQo isn't worth much in this sort of game, and AJo is pretty much trash, but suited aces, suited connectors, and small-medium pairs are goldmines.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree about suited aces, suited connectors, and pairs. But I disagree about AQo and AJo. They certainly lose value in loose games, no one disputes that. But they still have retain some value, because they can make hands like top two or TPTK that get paid off because of the looseness in these games.

I may be looking at this more anecdotally than theoretically, because I recall dragging a huge pot with aces and queens over a couple of worse two pairs [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. But I certainly don't think you should be folding these even in a typical, 8-to-the-flop, go-to-the-river-with-your-two-outer kind of games.

ZenMusician:[ QUOTE ]

It took me awhile to really understand the true meaning of
protecting your hand. It really means "forcing your opponents
to call/play unprofitably". The shocker is YOU DO NOT CARE
IF THEY CALL OR NOT when you have forced them to make
mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly do care! You wish they would make the more -EV or less +EV play -- but you're happy you limited them to worse options than if you'd played your own hand incorrectly.

As for protecting one's hand, my understanding is that even if you "can't protect your hand" enough to make it unprofitable for draws to call, you should still do whatever you can to get the most money in the pot while you're leading -- be it betting out, check/raising, or holding up on the flop and raising after a blank on the turn. You certainly shouldn't say, "I can't protect my hand, so I'll meekly check/call and expect to get drawn out on." You can't make it wrong for them to call, but you can make it more expensive.

ZenMusician:
[ QUOTE ]

This hand was played badly. You did not protect your hand.
It is clear you have not read SSHE (Small Stakes Hold 'Em)
by Ed Miller (see books on this site). You must learn to
bet your hands and draws correctly; this may mean check
raising instead of leading, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read SSHE several times (although I've misplaced my copy) and it's not clear to me at all that the OP was categorically wrong. In passive games, it wouldn't be surprising to have the flop and turn checked through six ways. As bad as charging one bet when you could have charged two may be, charging zero when you could have charged one is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR worse.

In aggressive games or with aggressive players in late position, then failing to c/r may well be a grevious error. I don't see the evidence to make that conclusion here, though.

I don't recall seeing in SSHE the recipe for the magic potion to make the button bet when you want to c/r, but perhaps I overlooked that section.

Re: On Golden Pond, but no catch
 

[ QUOTE ]
In passive games, it wouldn't be surprising to have the flop and turn checked through six ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to recall seeing you say things like this before and I have to ask you . . . where on the earth or Internet do you play that this EVER happens? Seriously - I don't doubt your honesty - I'm just saying I can check-raise 3 handed pretty much at will on all the sites I play. It's as though the last player to act is physically compelled to bet regardless of what he holds at any small stakes limit.

Re: On Golden Pond, but no catch
 

Foxwoods $2/4
Pacific 25c/50c LHE and 12c-25c NLHE

In both cases it depends on the individuals in the game, of course, but I find there are more loose-passive opponents than loose-aggressive. There are often times when 4 to 6 people will check the flop through. Hard to put a number on it, but I've certainly thought plenty of times, "What an idiot I am for attempting a check/raise." Maybe that's a small and anecdotal sample, I'm not sure.