Interesting play on the turn - kept me in check

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
My opponent correctly applied FTOP, and it was a very very good play. He knew exactly where my hand was, and I had no clue where his was. I had to decisions to make at a bad time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should review both the FTOP and general poker strategy. You seem overly impressed with fancy play, but your opponent misplayed this on every street to varying degrees. I'm doing this without the hand in front of me, so excuse any minor errors.

He doesn't raise pre-flop w/ AK after a couple of limpers. Pretty bad.

He checkraises on the turn w/ a draw in a spot where you've said others are likely to fold if they believe someone has a flush. And if you have a flush, you'll 3-bet. In any case, he definitely won't get even close to correct odds to pump his draw. And then he tosses in a ridiculous fourth bet.

Now, on the river, if he thinks he can either push you off a smaller flush (or a non-flush hand), his only chance is to bet again. If he doesn't think a bet will get you to fold enough of the time to make it worthwhile to try, his turn 4-bet is even worse.

As for decisions, here you have a made hand and position. If you don't like making decisions in that situation, I can't see when you ever will.

As for your play, it's fine except for the river. If he bets, call. If he checks, bet and call a raise. That river play should be almost automatic for you against a player like this in this situation.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Gosh, I guess the last five years playing on OPM means I am a loser...where is my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than tossing out sarcastic responses to posters who are trying to help you out, you should consider actually thinking about why they made specific responses. Perhaps then you'll have a better chance at moving up and beating higher limit games.

[Mike]

tell me this is a joke

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
tell me this is a joke

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would you think that was a joke? You post a hand and go into detail about why you think your opponent made a great play, yet the opponent pretty much botched the hand start to finish. A poster responds saying, among other things (I just skimmed the responses, so I'm not sure what exactly he covered), that you should review some of the fundamental aspects of the game. And you come back w/ a flippant retort about how you've been a winning player for 5 years. Good for you, I guess. But maybe that attitude has something to do w/ the fact that you're a winning 4/8 player after playing for 5 years.

[rockoon]

I am rather giddy over some of the comments here.

Some people seem to think raising with AK after a few people limp is automatic. Some people think calling a cap bet on the turn and another bet on the river with a small flush is automatic.

It can easily be shown that capping the turn with the nut flush draw as a semi-bluff, given a specific situation, is logical. For example, suppose you had a semi-reliable (say, 75%) tell on the player who 3-bets it and the tell is screaming "weak hand". Now the tell is only semi-reliable.. YOU COULD BE WRONG.. but it would be a mistake to act on the fact that you might be wrong. It would be a much more wrong to ignore the tell than to misread it in a big pot.

Consider the nut-flush-draw guys situation.. a very tough one.. tell or no tell. He might find himself paying off on the end with only AK high just because of the size of the pot. Many winning players, when faced with the possibility of making two different mistakes in a tough spot, will make the smaller mistake of the two. This is logical.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people seem to think raising with AK after a few people limp is automatic.

[/ QUOTE ]
In a 4/8 game? Yeah, pretty much...

[ QUOTE ]
Some people think calling a cap bet on the turn and another bet on the river with a small flush is automatic.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you have reason to call a turn cap w/ a small flush, calling a single river bet should definitely be automatic.

[ QUOTE ]
It can easily be shown that capping the turn with the nut flush draw as a semi-bluff, given a specific situation, is logical.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your example makes sense and I agree w/ your general point. However, I don't think it really applies to this situation. The percentage of times a player in a 4/8 game will bet and 3-bet then release to a 4-bet is so small that the semi-bluff 4-bet is almost never correct. And if he the turn semi-bluffer thinks he's stumbled onto the one guy who is 3-bet semibluffing w/ something like a pair + a big spade, he definitely needs to fire again on the river.

[ QUOTE ]
Consider the nut-flush-draw guys situation.. a very tough one..

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see much that's all that tough about his situation at any point in the hand. BTW, I may not have even listed all of that guy's mistakes. I don't recall the action exactly, but it may well have been better for the AK holder to raise on the flop if he's not going to fold.

[Franchise (TTT)]

For your sake, I'll reply one last time to this thread. You can then dismiss my advice like you've dismissed Ulysses', et al... I honestly think you should reconsider the advice in this thread, and stop replying indignantly on how great of a move it is. Meanwhile, feel free to try it in any game I'm playing in.

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, but do you know how much a good player makes by making the opposition fold on the end of a hand when they shouldn't? I start drooling when I see a player fold to a single river bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

For every player who will fold a medium flush for 2 extra big bets in a large pot you can show me, I'll find you 200 low limit players that won't. Good luck on those odds.

[ QUOTE ]
Any medium or small flush will get cracked more times than it will win in a loose game.

[/ QUOTE ]

NFW. Are you kidding me?

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, where in the posts did you come with the idea I have a weak tight tendency?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the above two quotes.

[ QUOTE ]
He made a move, a good move, and next time we play together I will remember that he's capable of making a move. So will the other eight players that were at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

What move is that??? That he puts in extra money when he's behind? I guess ALL of your opponents are making "moves" aren't they?! They have you thoroughly confused at these low limits.

[ QUOTE ]
You are assuming that he was certian I had the flush, and I wasn't making a move on the pot. What if he thought I was making a move with nothing or something he could beat? He could have held trips or two pair, which increases his number of good outs, then a flush draw too which makes his bets on the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you trying to prove? He put in extra money when he was behind. And why would you be making a move in a low-limit game where nobody folds? If he thinks the following things, good for him... he's delusional. Any way you look at it, it's a crappy "play" if that.

[rockoon]

[ QUOTE ]
For every player who will fold a medium flush for 2 extra big bets in a large pot you can show me, I'll find you 200 low limit players that won't. Good luck on those odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there you go assuming knowledge. Its a bad play for sure in hindsight - you however seem to think both players had their cards face up. Thats not how poker is played.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a terrible play. He's paying an extra big bet on the turn drawing to 7 outs. He shouldn't have raised in the first place, the 4bet is just ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be pointed out that on a very loose, very passive table where you expect with high certainty for everyone to call but nobody to raise (or that everybody will call any additional raises), then the original turn raise will have positive EV.

Of course, there is reason from the original post to believe that these table conditions were neither very loose nor very passive. This makes his turn raise a losing play (though not a disasterous one).

His 4bet is, as you aptly put it, just ridiculous.