Good aggressive play or just plain manical

me454555 · #1 12-14-2003, 06:59 AM

Party Poker 0.50/1 (8 handed)
Hero has 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and is UTG

Hero limps, CO limps, Button raises, SB calls, BB folds, Hero calls, CO calls

This had been a very loose table w/5 or 6 callers seeing the flop. I thought there was a very good chance I'd get the limpers I needed so I limped as well. The button raiser has very lose raising standards. He would raise anything from a medium pocket pair to A8o.

Flop(9 SB): 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

SB checks, Hero checks, CO checks, Button bets, SB folds, Hero raises, CO folds, Button calls

I didn't want to bet out b/c I didn't think I could get everyone to fold for 1 bet. The bet came from the button so I thought maybe overcards, A high or a middle pocket pair like 66 or 77.

Turn(11 BB): 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Hero bets, Button calls

Went for the bet again in hopes of folding him.

River(13 BB): 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Hero checks, Button bets, Hero folds

I figured that if hes not folding on the turn, he's probobly going to just call the river.

Did I waste money by playing too aggressive or was this just a case of good play and a bad outcome? Should I have bet the river in hopes of a fold?

SpaceAce · #2 12-14-2003, 08:47 AM

I would not have played 44 under the gun and you should have been out after that crummy flop. By the time the river came around, the board was ALL overcards. If he had a match for any card on the board or pocket 55s on up, you have lost.

In the micro limit games, a hand like 44 is worthless without plenty of limpers in the pot before you. After the flop, your 44 is really worthless unless you made your set or there is a huge number of small bets in the pot to justify chasing your set.
Think about it: what can you beat with 44? Nothing but 33, 22 and no pair. It's just noth worth throwing more money down the small pair hole.

In short, I don't think there was any reason to play this hand under the gun and I don't think there was any reason to go past the flop with it.

SpaceAce

MrBlini · #3 12-14-2003, 09:07 AM

I've done this a few times more that I should have. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Play the small pair after limpers, when you can get a full limpfest going. Oops.

Check-fold that flop. Oops.

Check-fold that turn. Oops.

Once you've reached the river with this mess and such a big pot, consider betting if you can make maximum use of a loose, crazy, wild, ramming-and-jamming, certifiably mad table image. Force the button to fold or show this puppy down. If you show it down, and you will, you need to play your very best tight, controlled, selectively aggressive, almost absolutely bluff-free poker for the next hour or two. It can be very profitable. Other players may be excessively willing to pay you off. They may think you are bluffing when you are not. There's nothing quite like showing down cheese and then being dealt a few premium hands, but you must change gears, playing nothing marginal or questionable, to make it work for you. Otherwise, your opponents' adaptation to your loose aggressive play will be correct.

Noodles · #4 12-14-2003, 09:21 AM

Actually that is much better than my crappy check/fold advice [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Noodles · #5 12-14-2003, 09:18 AM

I think the flop limp with 44 is justified as you said the table was passive with a lot of limpers so very logical.
A lot might say dont come in with less than 77 UTG but thay probably have some sort of PF chart like in LLTH which they play regardless of table texture.
As regards the flop play i thought you were trying a CR kind of bluff to tell the PF raiser i have an 8 in my hand,
Then he calls as you said he has loose raising standards(does this apply post flop?) looks like he may have AT or even KT maybe even a pair of nines.
This is a tricky one,but it looks like you are behind on the turn with not many outs i probably would have gone weak and check/folded.

chesspain · #6 12-14-2003, 11:48 AM

I think that the consensus is that the PF limp with 44 was bad...but on to the rest of the hand.

I think flop and turn were fine. However, there is no way I'm checkfolding this on the river HU. Button could easily have high overcards with one [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], and so was not about to fold to your turn bet. I would check on the river to induce a bluff. When he did bet, you may well have folded the better hand...ugh...

me454555 · #7 12-14-2003, 03:52 PM

I couldn't see him calling down anything less than a pair so I put him on a Tx or a a pocket pair better than mine. After he called the turn I knew I was done. I definatly think I should have showed my looser for table image purposes.

chesspain · #8 12-14-2003, 04:43 PM

I don't know why you refuse to consider that he could have had a hand like AK or AQ with one club. You wouldn't have to win this showdown more than 15% of time for your river check-call to be correct.

me454555 · #9 12-14-2003, 04:59 PM

yeah I definatly agree that calling the river would have been correct. Folding was just weak

rkiray · #10 12-14-2003, 12:37 PM

I like the job you did describing the table and your opponent.
[ QUOTE ]
This had been a very loose table w/5 or 6 callers seeing the flop. I thought there was a very good chance I'd get the limpers I needed so I limped as well. The button raiser has very lose raising standards. He would raise anything from a medium pocket pair to A8o.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHen you limp from ep with low and medium pairs the table needs to be both loose and PASSIVE. I would not limp against this button. Also you should plan to fold when you do this every time unless you flop trips or an oesd. Otherwise this play will cost you a fortune in the long run.