Strangely Played Hand in 10K at Harrahs

[Easy E]

After thinking about this a little more, maybe you can make a case for dumping the Aces here. There are a lot of cards you have to avoid, or you're faced with a really tough turn/river decision chain.

However, I think I would have raised to 900-1000 to pressure the remaining limpers and see whether Jennifer has as strong a hand as she should have, betting into the field as she did.
She could be betting a flush draw, or may be afraid of one with her strong hand? I don't know how to read her leading out, rather than check-raising, unless all of the players are going to play very tightly to this flop.

I guess that's why I'm not the 5th or 10th best/smartest player in the world. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[West]

Of course, that is general advice (not having the book in front of me), whereas this particular case is at the beginning of a $10000 buy in tourney, where the stacks are huge relative to the blinds (and a tough table).

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think I would have raised to 900-1000 to pressure the remaining limpers and see whether Jennifer has as strong a hand as she should have, betting into the field as she did.
She could be betting a flush draw, or may be afraid of one with her strong hand? I don't know how to read her leading out, rather than check-raising, unless all of the players are going to play very tightly to this flop

[/ QUOTE ]

When I first read the problem, I thought the post-flop fold was insane. But a call prices in any draws behind you, and a raise leaves you subject not only to raises from the late limpers (which of course can hit you even if you call) but also to Harman -- which is a problem.

Of the two, I like a raise more because it prices out the draws behind you. But the downside is that if you get a call, you've put in 10% of your stack in a position where you may not be able to put another chip in the pot: Any diamond and any 9-A are potential trouble cards.

At the end of the day, I think the fold is fine. You've only got $50 in the pot and are ducking some very serious risks on later streets.

[TroutMaskReplica]

[ QUOTE ]
"Harrington on Holdem" by Dan Harrington 1995 WSOP winner. Reviewed by David Sklansky befor publication.

Page 191.

"Case 3. A caller in third position you are in 5th position"

"A,A;K,K:Q,Q you should raise with these premium pairs"...three to 5 times the blinds."

Oh maybe because the Aces were both black you shouldn't raise with them. Yeah, now I get it! (BTW - if you are randomizing the way you play Aces in this situation not raising when you have two black Aces would be fine which goes along with Harrington's "occaisionally" calling here).

Brunson also says raise after a limper in Super system but I'll let you find the page.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone else has pointed this out yet, so for the benefit of those who may not have read HOH, the last line of the section you quote above reads:

"Important exception: limp if a raise behind you is fairly likely"

Your selective quote might have suggested a contradiction between Sklansky's play in this hand and the advice given in a book he "reviewed before publication".

In fact you're also misquoting Harrington by suggesting he advocates "occasional" calling with aces here - on that page the reference to occasionally calling is to a different situation, an unopened pot - he's contrasting his advice for playing the same hand in different situations.

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone else has pointed this out yet

[/ QUOTE ]

Just what is it that you think you are "pointing out"? If you are in the habit of "pointing out" things why not try using the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why not read Sklansky's original post and "point out' for the folk who you don't believe are capable of doing things for themselves, where it says in that post that a "raise behind is likely". I sure would like you to "point that out". Oh, seems like that little tid bit "a likely raise behind" was so important that Sklansky felt it necessary to make another clarifying post that "pointed out" that very point. While you are pointing things out why not point out that my Harrington Post was based on Sklansky's origianl post. That is if you are still "pointing out" things.

Vince

[adanthar]

The MTT thread died so I'll repost part of my post here:

Hero is (presumably) a world class player at a 10K event behind two EP limpers. He limps behind in MP. What hands does an LP player now need to raise those three limpers, as opposed to limping behind?

If the answer is 'KK-QQ, AK', wouldn't you be far better off raising in the first place hoping for a reraise (especially if one of those already limped in EP)? If the answer is 'two cards, held by an idiot', wouldn't you also be far better off raising in the first place and hoping the guy calls, then hits top pair on the flop?

It seems to me that what's going on here is a limp that very frequently sets up the 7 way PF limpfest Hero got. The particular flop of QT4, two diamonds, and a bet from the SB makes it a good, relatively easy fold. But overall, there are lots and lots of flops, especially the 'way ahead or way behind'/big draw categories like K55 or 863 of clubs, where you are often destined to lose a good chunk of your stack with 7 way action and can't just lay it down.

If the price to pay here is that you also have to occasionally raise 98s in the same situation, I'd much rather do that than to limp aces behind EP limpers. (If part of the deal is folding them face up, frankly, I'd rather push them PF. They'd win more that way and your table image would be just as nuts.)

[TroutMaskReplica]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone else has pointed this out yet

[/ QUOTE ]

Just what is it that you think you are "pointing out"? If you are in the habit of "pointing out" things why not try using the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why not read Sklansky's original post and "point out' for the folk who you don't believe are capable of doing things for themselves, where it says in that post that a "raise behind is likely". I sure would like you to "point that out". Oh, seems like that little tid bit "a likely raise behind" was so important that Sklansky felt it necessary to make another clarifying post that "pointed out" that very point. While you are pointing things out why not point out that my Harrington Post was based on Sklansky's origianl post. That is if you are still "pointing out" things.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy there - I was just "pointing out" that you mis-quoted the Harrington book seemingly with the intention of suggesting it somehow contradicted Sklansky's play in that situation. You left out a key line from the text - as you say yourself "the whole truth" etc.

I wasn't relating what you said to how Sklansky set up the description in his original post although you're right, there's nothing explicit about a raise behind being likely. If he had pointedly included that qualification this discussion would likely have been less interesting though.

[betgo]

In a $10K tournament, it is very likely that someone will raise a bunch of limpers from late position, maybe with a standard raising hand like AJ, ATs, KQ, 99, or better, or maybe with less. You don't need a reraising hand like AK or QQ or better to raise limpers.

It important to disguise that you have AA with deep money against good players. For the same reason that playing for a limpraise UTG with AA may not be a good play with deep money, playing for a limpraise in an unusual situation may be.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But wait... isn'it against the rules to show your hand with
others left to act behind u ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Violating the rules by doing this is even better. That might create a big to do and bring the floor over. Then everyone in the tournament will know what you did. Plus the appearance that you don't know the rule on this will make you look like even more of a fish.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you would knowingly contravene the rules for the purpose of gaining an advantage. Isn't that the definition of cheating?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
So you would knowingly contravene the rules for the purpose of gaining an advantage. Isn't that the definition of cheating?


[/ QUOTE ]

I was just kidding. The whole disussion along thaose lines was a joke. I am not an Amarillo Slim protoge.