Hand from 'How Good is your Limit Hold'em'

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, I hate calling pre-flop in the SB with Q6o.

[/ QUOTE ]This is the part I was wondering about. I fold this all the time as well

[/ QUOTE ]If I'm not mistaken, this hand comes from a 15/30 games where the small blind is 2/3 structure.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's correct, QTip - this is a $15/30 game. (10 handed) Also note the players are not only too loose preflop, but postflop they tend to call along happily with all kinds of feeble holdings. After the preflop limps from utg, two middle players and the button, there is $85 in the pot and it is $5 to you.

[mack848]

I think the general concensus is to go for the c/r.

The author suggests betting out, but I was surprised by his logic. He wants to confront the field with a double bet, so that they will probably fold unless they have a Q or flush draw. He says that their reaction is likely to help clarify the situation. He also mentions the small posibility of the flop being checked round if we check.

Question is, do we want anyone without a Q or flush draw to fold? How many outs can they have on a QQ4 flop? Anyone with a pocket pair has 2 outs - and we have full house outs if they hit. Anyone with a 4 is drawing dead.

I like a flop c/r as it may trap an extra player, or two, for a double bet and charges any flush draw. I also like it as it could easily be percieved as someone playing a flush draw, rather than simply telling them you have a Q. A turn raise or c/r is really going to look like a Q if the flush card doesn't turn.

How's my logic here? I feel like I must be misinterpreting something, as I agree with almost everything else in this book.

[Zeatrix]

good move

you should write the author of the book and direct him to this thread, maybe he will reply...

[ QUOTE ]
Protect your hand from what?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ayecappy]

zeatrix, sweden, esreality?

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the general concensus is to go for the c/r.

The author suggests betting out, but I was surprised by his logic. He wants to confront the field with a double bet, so that they will probably fold unless they have a Q or flush draw. He says that their reaction is likely to help clarify the situation. He also mentions the small posibility of the flop being checked round if we check.

Question is, do we want anyone without a Q or flush draw to fold? How many outs can they have on a QQ4 flop? Anyone with a pocket pair has 2 outs - and we have full house outs if they hit. Anyone with a 4 is drawing dead.

I like a flop c/r as it may trap an extra player, or two, for a double bet and charges any flush draw. I also like it as it could easily be percieved as someone playing a flush draw, rather than simply telling them you have a Q. A turn raise or c/r is really going to look like a Q if the flush card doesn't turn.

How's my logic here? I feel like I must be misinterpreting something, as I agree with almost everything else in this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply think the author is wrong. Betting out, hoping to get raised, so you can get the hand short-handed with better Qs, flush draws, and maybe BB's overpair, is retarded.

Anyone holding small pocket pairs, As with backdoor draws, or whatever, may well put two bets in, one at a time, and those hands certainly don't merit putting in 2 SB or more total on this flop. We gain TONS OF VALUE when those hands continue on to the turn.

The concept of "clarifying the situation" is absolutely retarded, in my opinion. The pot is so big even at the point of the flop, that we are seeing a showdown and it's that simple. Since we have no intent to fold here I see no reason to try to generate information at the cost of value.

So this is a very clear flop check-raise and it's not close.

The Ciaffone-Brier-Jacobs (and maybe add Lee Jones...) School of Poker is interesting in that I think they often exhibit what I might call "aggressive tight-weakness." In other words, they advocate playing their hands in an aggressive manner designed to protect/charge draws/gain information when other possibilities clearly generate more value. I think this largely derives from a mistaken understanding of our opponentns odds and so forth... In this example they don't realize that we really want hands that are not flush draws or Qs to put money in on the flop, and since we can't do anything to force out those hands, we should simply look at maximizing value from the non-Q/flush draw hands.

And as for pre-flop, Jacobs is right there. I personally play any 2 in a multiway pot in a 2/3 structure, and this is precisely what Sklansky advocates in HPFAP. Since you are not getting the same odds on calling the raise, folding to the raise makes sense.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the general concensus is to go for the c/r.

The author suggests betting out, but I was surprised by his logic. He wants to confront the field with a double bet, so that they will probably fold unless they have a Q or flush draw. He says that their reaction is likely to help clarify the situation. He also mentions the small posibility of the flop being checked round if we check.

Question is, do we want anyone without a Q or flush draw to fold? How many outs can they have on a QQ4 flop? Anyone with a pocket pair has 2 outs - and we have full house outs if they hit. Anyone with a 4 is drawing dead.

I like a flop c/r as it may trap an extra player, or two, for a double bet and charges any flush draw. I also like it as it could easily be percieved as someone playing a flush draw, rather than simply telling them you have a Q. A turn raise or c/r is really going to look like a Q if the flush card doesn't turn.

How's my logic here? I feel like I must be misinterpreting something, as I agree with almost everything else in this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply think the author is wrong. Betting out, hoping to get raised, so you can get the hand short-handed with better Qs, flush draws, and maybe BB's overpair, is retarded.

Anyone holding small pocket pairs, As with backdoor draws, or whatever, may well put two bets in, one at a time, and those hands certainly don't merit putting in 2 SB or more total on this flop. We gain TONS OF VALUE when those hands continue on to the turn.

The concept of "clarifying the situation" is absolutely retarded, in my opinion. The pot is so big even at the point of the flop, that we are seeing a showdown and it's that simple. Since we have no intent to fold here I see no reason to try to generate information at the cost of value.

So this is a very clear flop check-raise and it's not close.

The Ciaffone-Brier-Jacobs (and maybe add Lee Jones...) School of Poker is interesting in that I think they often exhibit what I might call "aggressive tight-weakness." In other words, they advocate playing their hands in an aggressive manner designed to protect/charge draws/gain information when other possibilities clearly generate more value. I think this largely derives from a mistaken understanding of our opponentns odds and so forth... In this example they don't realize that we really want hands that are not flush draws or Qs to put money in on the flop, and since we can't do anything to force out those hands, we should simply look at maximizing value from the non-Q/flush draw hands.

And as for pre-flop, Jacobs is right there. I personally play any 2 in a multiway pot in a 2/3 structure, and this is precisely what Sklansky advocates in HPFAP. Since you are not getting the same odds on calling the raise, folding to the raise makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I previously answered check-raise in this thread which seems like the clearly correct answer. I finally went back to the book (which I read most of a while ago) and see that I had done this problem before and got the "wrong" answer by choosing check with the intention of check-raising. At the time I made a marginal notation that the book's answer was "ridiculous". I generally like this book though and would recommend it. However, I thought this was an example of a clear error. Particulalry in light of the loose table description and the aggressive BB you should be check-raising this hand.

One of the interesting contradictions in the author's answer is that if you bet BB will almost certainly raise thus facing the field with a double bet. I, and most others here, don't think you want to do that. However, putting that aside, he later writes that if you check it might get checked around. Well, if the BB is so aggressive that he will certainly raise your donk bet, then why might he let the flop get checked around when you check. Well, which one is it? You can't have it both ways here.

[Kevroc]

Just as an aside here, I enjoyed the book very much but, disagreed with the author VERY OFTEN.

Some things were read dependant but, the so-called slam dunk decisions I thought were shoddy advice.

[ QUOTE ]
edit: read the responses after posting, and see a lot of people wanting to protect our hand? Why? We are way ahead here, other than the rare time we're behind a bigger queen. There may be some 2-outers against us, but this is not enough reason imo to not be looking to extract as much value as possible. no risk, no reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

This clarified things a lot for me. Thanks.