Ciaffone's Middle Limit Poker

[bobhalford]

Just got this book yesterday and am enjoying all the examples. Just wondering if anyone is familiar at all with the "Getting Raised" chapter. I am having trouble believing that it is correct to fold in a lot of the scenarios presented in this chapter. For example, on pg.181: "You raise from middle position with the AKo after an early player limps. Two middle players call as well as the early limper. The flop is 9c 7d 3s. The early limper checks, you bet and one of the middle players calls. There are 5.5BB in the pot and two players. The turn is the As, giving you top pair, top kicker. You bet and get raised. What do you do?"

Ciaffone says to fold because it means you are probably up against 2 pair or a set. I wonder if the advice in this book should be treated the same as HPFAP, where not all the advice is applicable to lower limits (Of course, I am aware of the book title)? I was excited to read this chapter because I feel that sometimes I bleed chips calling down what I know is a better hand. But I would hate to plug that leak by folding the best hand too often when I don't have the nuts.

Any comments welcome.

[oreogod]

The hand u talk about, its player dependant.

Here is a thread about this same hand I started a little while back:

Hypothetical Ak hand

I believe it is a fold, my friend, who plays 150/300 for a living (not that that says anything) says its a fold...the posters in the thread say, call down or re-raise. I believe that advice to be wrong, but thats the point of this forum, u have differing opinions and u live and learn.

My friend actually gave me his copy of Middle Limit, I asked him about this very hand after getting to it...he told me, obviously it depends on your opponent, but against a solid aggressive opponent its usually a muck. I told him I wanted to post it on the forum, and he said "Dont expect anyone to tell u to fold, most ppl will never tell u to fold that hand." He's right. I think sometimes people are over-zealous in advocating a call down in some situations, not all, but some.

But to each his own style. If I get a read that tells me different I will call down or re-raise. Against a solid opponent who usually never gets out of line, I fold. Or at least fold on the river.

(by the way, not knocking the forum at all. Its a great place and helps and has helped me when I was just starting out. you will find opinions u disagree with and ones u will take and accept to be right. Just read everything with an open mind.)

Hope this helps.

[oreogod]

Also, if u need any advice about some of the hands in the book or have any questions about them, PM me if u want.

[Siegmund]

As you're well aware, Ciaffone's style is going to be a bit too conservative for most online micros and casino 3/6s.

That said ... this is one of my favourite books, probably has done my game more good than any other single one I have read. I suppose *somewhere* in the world there is someone who doesn't EVER call down too much. But it sure isn't me ... even on my good days, the "I was an idiot to put in those extra 2 big bets to get a showdown" hands FAR outnumber the "damn, I wish I hadn't folded" hands.

Got to watch your opponents (yes, this means only playing a few tables at once, not 8 of them) to get this kind of decision right, but you will find tight tables down as low as $1/2 and $2/4 online where this book's style is a big winner.

The chapter on when (not) to see the turn with just overcards alone is worth the price of admission.

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
But it sure isn't me ... even on my good days, the "I was an idiot to put in those extra 2 big bets to get a showdown" hands FAR outnumber the "damn, I wish I hadn't folded" hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Becareful if the number of BB in the pots you foled FAR outnumbered the 2 BB you "saved."

Fruit plate anyone?

But I agree. Against certain players, the hand OP referred to is a fold.

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]

Becareful if the number of BB in the pots you foled FAR outnumbered the 2 BB you "saved."


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. I should mention, though, that I find the big multiway pots fairly easy to play, just a matter of counting outs when you have the draws / crossing your fingers to see when scare cards come and calling down against people liable to bluff.

The hands that give me trouble are the ones where it's a small 2- or 3-way pot and I have a weak hand that has a smallish chance of being best... and for those, Ciaffone has done a great job of stopping me from investing 2 or 3BB to see a 7BB pot pushed away from me.

In the OP's example, the message is that *if* villain has the hand he represents we have 2 outs at best (and if he doesn't, we are ahead), and at the middle limits it is a big parlay to find a villain who stayed in with a poor hand AND is now overplaying it vs. a raiser. let me rephrase the OP's question around: "what is the highest limit at which you'd call this down vs. an unknown raiser?"

In some of the examples, Bob gives a read on a player ("only plays premium cards" or "always bets with any piece of the flop" etc) - one thing that maybe needs re-emphasized about this book is that in all the rest of the examples, you are supposed to assume competent opposition.

I find, as a player struggling to work his way up the limits, that it's psychologically palatable to say to myself after I fold a winner "I made the right play against tough opponents, but this villain was being an idiot... I'll make a note of him" -- but I HATE to call down a hideous way-behind hand and then say to myself "villain had just what he said he did, and I threw money at him like a microlimit clown."

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]

But I agree. Against certain players, the hand OP referred to is a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a beautiful beautiful man. That is the first time so far Ive got a concurment on this.

I agree with Sigmunds analysis as well. Some of these hands are obviously very player/read dependant. It is a great book.

[bobhalford]

It is a great book. I think I will start folding a bit more when I feel I'm beat and the pot size is not enough to warrant a call to stave off a bluff, semibluff, or 2nd best hand. Poker Tracker is great for getting reads, but the numbers are usually not enough to know how "solid" a player is or what he is liable to do in various situations. I'm hoping to move back up to 3/6 in a week or two once I've rebuilt my bankroll, and I figure to put this book to work since there will be fewer donkeys raising the A on the turn with a hand worse than AK.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But I agree. Against certain players, the hand OP referred to is a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a beautiful beautiful man. That is the first time so far Ive got a concurment on this.

I agree with Sigmunds analysis as well. Some of these hands are obviously very player/read dependant. It is a great book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've gotten into this exact debate about MLH many times, and my point has always been that though I imagine that there are games where this is a clear fold, I've never played in one.

In addition, the 'image' problem that folding this creates seems tough to me. If your better opponenets know you will lay down TPTK to a CR in this spot...

I think that the poker landscape has changed so much since the book was first written that the "tough california 20-40" game the book was written for has maybe moved to 40-80 or higher.

[colgin]

I am actually re-reading MLH now (second cover to end re-reading although certain sections I have read many times).

In the games I play in this would generally be a cal-down since you will get raised byan Ace with a worse kicker. This is player dependan though. Unless I know that opponent s pretty tight I am not laying down here. a lot of theissues people have with MLH is the assumptions Ciaffone and Bryer make aboutyouropponents' likely holdings. I am sure there are games where thisis a fold. I amnot certain those games are your typical middle limit games today, either live or online; they are certainly not your typical low limit games.