Problem with AQo

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt he's reraising me on the flop with KK / QQ / TT, just as I doubt he's going to showdown with those hands that I'm way ahead of, so its a situation where if I'm behind, I'm losing at least 2 1/2 BB's and if I'm ahead, I gain virtually nothing as Villain will fold on the flop / turn holding the hands that I beat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well you didn't give any read on Villian in this hand so it's difficult for me to make assumptions about what he would or wouldn't do. I think it's pretty safe to say however, that there are plenty of 2/4 players that will raise your flop lead with these pairs you mentioned. Many times they will also be committed to going to showdown - especially when it's HU. Villian, if he had one of those big pairs, played you pretty good on this hand as he went to showdown for only 2BBs where as you should've made at the least 2.5+BBs.

FYI - If I was at your table I would notice how weak/tight you play (and it probably wouldn't take long to realize this). I would be 3-betting you PF on hands like this with a VERY wide range of hands and expecting you to submit to my aggression after the flop.

If you haven't already you really need to pick up a copy of SSHE.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
The old raise for information play?

[/ QUOTE ]
Raising for information sucks because it very often doesn't work. You should do this roughly never, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, but I tend to trust my instincts when it comes to hand reading. I was 90 percent sure he had AK, put it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not the way that winning players would look at the hand. A winning player would assign Villian a range of possible hands. In this case that range could possibly be: AA-99, AKs-ATs, AKo, AQo. I think this is a fairly reasonable 3-betting range for 2/4 players. It's probably a bit on the liberal side - a read on Villian would help narrow (or widen) this range. Out of those combinations of hands we calculate the probability that Villian holds a hand that's ahead of us and the probability that Villian holds a hand that's behind us. You can then base your decision on this information.

In this case, against the arbitrary hand range given, you're a pretty decent favorite against this range of hands.

[avisco01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt he's reraising me on the flop with KK / QQ / TT, just as I doubt he's going to showdown with those hands that I'm way ahead of, so its a situation where if I'm behind, I'm losing at least 2 1/2 BB's and if I'm ahead, I gain virtually nothing as Villain will fold on the flop / turn holding the hands that I beat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well you didn't give any read on Villian in this hand so it's difficult for me to make assumptions about what he would or wouldn't do. I think it's pretty safe to say however, that there are plenty of 2/4 players that will raise your flop lead with these pairs you mentioned. Many times they will also be committed to going to showdown - especially when it's HU. Villian, if he had one of those big pairs, played you pretty good on this hand as he went to showdown for only 2BBs where as you should've made at the least 2.5+BBs.

FYI - If I was at your table I would notice how weak/tight you play (and it probably wouldn't take long to realize this). I would be 3-betting you PF on hands like this with a VERY wide range of hands and expecting you to submit to my aggression after the flop.

If you haven't already you really need to pick up a copy of SSHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the advice. I have SSHE, and have read through it once only, but plan on re-reading it several times as I have done with the other poker books I've acquired, for the record. Sorry for no read on Villain, but he had just sat down for about 5 or 6 hands, and I didn't notice him in one pot until this one. Also, he wound up having precisely AK, just so you know. I realize most small stakes players are capable of raising with weaker hands, but sometimes you have to trust your instincts, isn't that part of the game as well? As for running over me, well, I am susceptible to that I have to admit. Its definitely a part of my game that I'm endeavoring to improve upon. In my defense, I'm much more aggressive playing in live play as players online seem to be better IMO. Also, I don't have stats on every player as most 2 + 2'ers seem to have software to track other players, thus I'm playing a distinct disadvantage in that sense. I tend to read how players play on my own rather than relying on arbitrary stats. So far, no good as I'm a consistant loser online, but hey, thats why I'm here. I appreciate the feedback and just hope to learn and get better.

[habsfanca11]

I got a sense from your responses that you're basing a lot of opponents hand ranges on what you would do/have. Crunchy doesn't need any back up here from me ... but, there are just too many opponents out there who would three bet and/or cap and continue to show aggression with K,K; Q,Q and even some with 10,10. Get out of your head and in to theirs. The stronger your read on your oppenent the more information you have to take Crunchy's line (in this case the correct line it seems) or just call down. FWIW.

[lozen]

I still like leading out with a raise but if on the button and a ton in i am just calling sometimes only as suggested by Harmon in SSII. If I lead in with it and a bunch of callers nd miss the flop I get away from it fast

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
he wound up having precisely AK, just so you know.

[/ QUOTE ]
#1 - Please don't let this influence your future decision making. The results of this hand DO NOT justify your poor play of this hand - or future hands.
#2 - I hope you made a note on this player's failure to value bet the river. If he's the type that's regularly not value betting the river, as he failed to do on this hand, he's leaving A LOT of money on the table in the 2/4 game.

[ QUOTE ]
I realize most small stakes players are capable of raising with weaker hands, but sometimes you have to trust your instincts, isn't that part of the game as well?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Make mathematically correct decisions. "Trusting your instincts", as you call it, will likely leave you making many incorrect folds, missing many value bets, and putting you on the path to long-term losing in limit hold'em.

[ QUOTE ]
As for running over me, well, I am susceptible to that I have to admit. Its definitely a part of my game that I'm endeavoring to improve upon. In my defense, I'm much more aggressive playing in live play as players online seem to be better IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're only playing 2/4 in the B&M casino - you should really think about dropping down a few levels in online play. You are correct - online players are much better for their level than players in the LIVE games. 2/4 online probably plays closer to 5/10 (possibly even 10/20) LIVE games.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, I don't have stats on every player as most 2 + 2'ers seem to have software to track other players, thus I'm playing a distinct disadvantage in that sense. I tend to read how players play on my own rather than relying on arbitrary stats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stats from a program like poker tracker are not arbitrary. Most of the better players posting in this forum are not solely relying on poker-program-reads. We are also practicing good table selection and taking detailed notes on the post-flop actions of our opponents.

[ QUOTE ]
So far, no good as I'm a consistant loser online, but hey, thats why I'm here. I appreciate the feedback and just hope to learn and get better.

[/ QUOTE ]
Keep at it. Not everyone starts out a winner right out of the gate. Good Luck. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[avisco01]

I guess I'm becoming a "rock." I have a tendency to let every card that falls scare me, which I realize is a terrible trait. I've been a victim of many bad beats, which I suppose is part of the game, but so many strange hands, lucky suck outs, well, its just tough to not expect the worst sometimes.

You're right crunchy, I can't let this one hand, or previous hands, or future hands for that matter, influence how I play. I guess I have to develop a shorter memory. Also, perhaps I'm overrating my ability to read hands, but I'm usually pretty accurate. Am I to abandon a facet of my game that I appear to do well? Should I forget the concept altogether and just say "most times, in this instance, AQ will be the best hand, so let me play really fast despite what I think this guy has and regardless of his preflop and on the flop aggression, if he has AK like I suspect, so be it, he'll just have to win a lot of chips from me...?"

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm becoming a "rock." I have a tendency to let every card that falls scare me, which I realize is a terrible trait. I've been a victim of many bad beats, which I suppose is part of the game, but so many strange hands, lucky suck outs, well, its just tough to not expect the worst sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is truely how you are feeling - possibly poker just isn't your game.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, perhaps I'm overrating my ability to read hands, but I'm usually pretty accurate. Am I to abandon a facet of my game that I appear to do well?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're usually pretty accurrate - then why are you losing? I'm guessing that about 1/2 the time when you're making these "reads" that you're seeing showdowns with second best hands like you posted above. These times are confirming your good "reads". There are probably, however, a number of times (the second 1/2) where you made what you think to be a "good read", folded, and actually laid down the best hand - and never had your read confirmed when the other guy mucked. In this case - what you don't know is hurting you.

[ QUOTE ]
Should I forget the concept altogether and just say "most times, in this instance, AQ will be the best hand, so let me play really fast despite what I think this guy has and regardless of his preflop and on the flop aggression, if he has AK like I suspect, so be it, he'll just have to win a lot of chips from me...?"

[/ QUOTE ]
No. You simply shouldn't be so quick to assume that your opponents have one of the few hands that beat you.

My advice: Drop down a few levels online. Reevaluate your game. Read some more books - SSHE isn't the only good book out there. Continue to read and write on these forums. Practice, Practice, Practice. GL! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[avisco01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm becoming a "rock." I have a tendency to let every card that falls scare me, which I realize is a terrible trait. I've been a victim of many bad beats, which I suppose is part of the game, but so many strange hands, lucky suck outs, well, its just tough to not expect the worst sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is truely how you are feeling - possibly poker just isn't your game.

I certainly hope not! I love to play and don't think I'm that hopeless. I was just venting a bit.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, perhaps I'm overrating my ability to read hands, but I'm usually pretty accurate. Am I to abandon a facet of my game that I appear to do well?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're usually pretty accurrate - then why are you losing? I'm guessing that about 1/2 the time when you're making these "reads" that you're seeing showdowns with second best hands like you posted above. These times are confirming your good "reads". There are probably, however, a number of times (the second 1/2) where you made what you think to be a "good read", folded, and actually laid down the best hand - and never had your read confirmed when the other guy mucked. In this case - what you don't know is hurting you.

I'm not talking about only the hands I'm involved in. I watch the hands when I fold of course, and am pretty accurate when it comes to reading the hands of my opponents left in the hands. I'm sure most people who visit the forum can do, and do do the same thing, but like I said, I'm usually very very accurate, so I tend to trust my ability to read hands while I'm still in the hand. I fold the hand when I believe that it can't win.

[ QUOTE ]
Should I forget the concept altogether and just say "most times, in this instance, AQ will be the best hand, so let me play really fast despite what I think this guy has and regardless of his preflop and on the flop aggression, if he has AK like I suspect, so be it, he'll just have to win a lot of chips from me...?"

[/ QUOTE ]
No. You simply shouldn't be so quick to assume that your opponents have one of the few hands that beat you.

Even when its logical that they DO have a hand that beats me? Also, I'm not sure I was "so quick," I carefully analyzed the situation and thought that he had me beat. Of course I called down, which I thought was my mistake, but apparently my mistake was not raising and being aggressive with my second best hand.

My advice: Drop down a few levels online. Reevaluate your game. Read some more books - SSHE isn't the only good book out there. Continue to read and write on these forums. Practice, Practice, Practice. GL! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I really appreciate this advice. All I do is think about the game and read all I can, and visit these forums contantly. I do think I'll become a winning player, and when I do, I'll have most of the people on these forums to thank. I have read and reread several books, not just SSHE. In any event, I will be playing a lot more aggressively and trying to not get locked into putting a player on a "specific hand" but a range of hands, as was suggested in this thread. I do generally put people on a range, and then narrow that range when new information becomes available, like being raised preflop, and on the flop for instance in this hand... In any case, I thank you all for the feedback, and look forward to learning more and more.

[RatFink]

Read this Ed Miller post as well, especially if you think this is a major leak