50-100 Stop and Go

[Diplomat]

[ QUOTE ]
your play in this hand doesn't cut the mustard. Ikke is right. You chose a cop out plan. Not ideal, top of the line play. Stop and go in this manner is rarely correct. It's usually a sign of not knowing where you or not having enough information to make the "right" play, whatever that may be. Not to say we aren't all guilty of it. You should have more answers to your questions about what your opponent is likely to have in these spots. Obviously you attain that information from past play and this may not always be possible. But for optimal results it is necessary.

One could me a decision (a correct one) based on the assumption that your opponent has a hand between 23o and AA. That doesn't exactly fly though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll assume you are saying that the stop and go play here should be a sign to prince that he did not know where he stood in the hand. I think it is just the opposite, that he knew where he was. If anything it displays confusion to the other players, which is always good.

I think raising the turn is out of the question. I think you stand too great of a chance of loosing your opponent if you powerplay the turn. The same goes for betting, although not with the same force. I do not want to loose an opponent who is drawing to 2 outs on the turn.

I am suprized no one has suggested a river checkraise. I'm not suggesting that such a play is a great idea, but the thought crossed my mind when I was reading the initial post.

-Diplomat

[PokerPrince]

At least someone understands what I was trying to do Diplomat. I can't get through to some of these people on here so I'll just leave them to their own monkey play.

As far as checkraising the river, it hadn't crossed my mind. I felt my opponent might check behind me with a pocket pair BUT call my river bet with an inferior hand. Not to mention, even if I did get to checkraise the river, it's unlikely a worse hand will pay me off on a board containing an Ace and two 9's. He did indeed have a puzzled look when I bet into him on the final card and took a few seconds to think before calling.

But I must be wrong right? I guess I should have just raised and reraised like a madman on this hand. Cause I truly would love to have the player with the worse hand fold and NOT let him bet AND call.

PokerPrince

[Ikke]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't get through to some of these people on here so I'll just leave them to their own monkey play.

[/ QUOTE ]

My God, the ego. Guess you would rather like 10 responses with "you played it like a God" than 1 that gives arguments why it can be different under a certain set of changed variables. In the limits you and I play in it's imperative to see 'all the angles'; think outside the box. But it seems the limit made your mind too rigid to do that.

Good luck.

Regards

[PokerPrince]

I won't disagree about my ego, yes I'm a confident player. I just don't understand why so many players like to play the ram and jam style when they have a hand. I would rather see about extracting the maximum from a player when I have the best of it. I apologize about the monkey comment, that was out of line.

PokerPrince

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
At least someone understands what I was trying to do Diplomat. I can't get through to some of these people on here so I'll just leave them to their own monkey play.

PokerPrince

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, a number of people including myself posted that you played it well. So, lashing out as if nobody is supporting the way you played it is silly. Second, it is frustrating when someone posts a hand where they are claiming they are looking for opinions on how it was played, but when someone disagrees they just say "I played it perfectly, moron!" If you are very confident you played the hand correctly, why post it?

[Benman]

OK, we can agree that the moment you check and he bets on the turn, you are hoping to get more money in the pot somehow. You think the best way is to call, and then hope to get one more bet on the river. That's realistic, and it worked in your case. I still think check-raising is better. If he's drawing to something, isn't he more likely to call your raise on the turn rather than a bet on the river after he hasn't made his hand? Also, check-raising gives some chance (small) that you'll get two additional bets--one when he calls the checkraise and one when he calls your bet on the river. In summary, I agree with your critisim of my post that you might lose him on the turn with a check-raise, but who's to say he isn't going to fold to your river bet?

[PokerPrince]

Calm down there slick, I know you liked the way it was played, no need to get your panties in a bunch. I didn't call anyone a moron and I apologized for my monkey comment so take a chill pill pal. I'm just trying to get my points across on why I played it the way I did. When I first posted the hand I wasn't sure if my play was correct or not, but now I think it was optimal for extracting the most out of my opponent. I just haven't heard anyone's opinion that has changed my mind on my play.

PokerPrince

[JonCooke]

Very nice play on this hand.
Clearly as it was you extracted the maximum.

I like it as a variance play rather than a stock play, because if you routinely check the turned ace you will lose credibility to bluff that ace when you haven't paired up.
Suppose you have reraised with KQ. You might want to bet the turn to lose your opponent's 66. If he remembers this hand you may not be able to.

You have to consider your whole game plan rather than just how to extract the maximum number of bets on your good hands. If taking an extra bet here costs you a pot later because you can't bluff, it may not be overall optimal.

[PokerPrince]

Some very good points Jon, thank you. I agree that this play should not be the totally standard play for all similar situations for your reasons given. I felt it did create some confusion to those who watched the hand play out which is always a good thing. I would definately have to alter my gameplan on later hands so as not to become readable or at all predictable.

PokerPrince