My copy of SuperSystem paid for itself last night

[aces_full]

[ QUOTE ]
In the book Alan Schoonmaker gives a scenario of making the nuts against the table calling station. He argues that the more correct play (in terms of long term EV) would be to check the hand through or simply call his bet rather than make him look like an ass.

- You have middle pair (5's) with a Queen Kicker, in what way is calling this down a smart play....? How are you gonna make anyone look bad by check raising the pot on the flop? You made a read and didn't act on it....thats the bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I guess we agree to disagree. You weren't there, so you don't know, and we can leave it at that. Sure I could have taken it down, but on the other hand, I knew he was bluffing and I was willing to risk getting outdrawn in order to squeeze out a few more bets (for all the reasons I stated before). My point is that this is a friendly home game, while I take poker seriously, my opponents do not. In the grand scheme of things, someone hitting an A or K and beating my pair isn't a big deal.

I simply posted a story about making a call based on a read I got on a player, that's all. If you need to make yourself feel superior by criticizing, knock yourself out.

[dogmeat]

Nice story! I am glad you won enough to pay for Super/System. However, I don't recall reading in my copy that you should call in the CO with Q 5 offsuit. Dogmeat

[Scottnyce]

All I heard was someone boasting about a great read they made while holding a pair of 5's, who let the entire table draw out to the river.....

I'm not being critical, i just asked a question on why you didn't take down the pot right there if you had the oppurtunity....you made it clear, god bless....you must play with very sensitive ppl who would think you would be cut throat for a check raise.

All I said was what i thought was the correct EV play. Its your game, play how ever you want...I wasn't trying to come off like an a-hole

[aces_full]

[ QUOTE ]
All I heard was someone boasting about a great read they made while holding a pair of 5's, who let the entire table draw out to the river.....

I'm not being critical, i just asked a question on why you didn't take down the pot right there if you had the oppurtunity....you made it clear, god bless....you must play with very sensitive ppl who would think you would be cut throat for a check raise.

All I said was what i thought was the correct EV play. Its your game, play how ever you want...I wasn't trying to come off like an a-hole

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood. I feel I have a solid "by the book" game. What I have been concentrating on lately is now playing the people game. Since I play in games (both live and online) where there are 3-6 players, I find I end up in more situations where I win pots with cards I would never play in a full game in ways I would never play them in a full game. I'm not disagreeing with the way you would have played the hand. My point was that my play of that particular hand took into account other factors besides the cards. I think I mentioned that the guy on the button was on tilt. I was the cause of that tilt. Earlier he flopped a small full house and slowplayed it. On the river I drew a bigger full house and nearly broke him. When he's on tilt he chase draws too far and pushes bluffs too far. Sure calling down his bets and letting everyone else draw was risky, but I knew if I gave him enough rope he would eventually hang himself, and as luck would have it, that he did.

I feel very fortunate to be in this game. I have a good thing going. These guys are bad players, and I have had years to carefully study and take notes on them. I don't think they are sensitive to the extent that one check-raise will create animosity. But I don't want to beat them to the extent that playing becomes no fun for them, or even worse, they start to play better against me. They are predictible, but in order to keep beating them, I must not be predictable. I also don't want them to start playing differently than they do now.

Another reason I played the way I did is my philosophy on big bet poker (especially short handed). In big bet games, I feel that I have to be more of a gambler. Playing in this way means not doing it by the book in certain situations. I was up nearly $50 and the few bucks I threw at this hand came from the guy on the button already. I look at it as freerolling with his money-giving me a chance to take even more of it. On the other hand, If I were stuck a few bucks instead, I would have probably played the hand differently.

[aces_full]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice story! I am glad you won enough to pay for Super/System. However, I don't recall reading in my copy that you should call in the CO with Q 5 offsuit. Dogmeat

[/ QUOTE ]

In a four handed (or less) game I will play any big card, any kicker from any position in most cases. With four or less players, any two cards really can win. I still don't play garbage hands, and I usually dump the drawing hands.

As the number of players increase, obviously my starting requirements increase. If there were five or six players I probably would pass on the Q5 unless it was suited. You have to play looser 4 way or the blinds will get you.

[deacsoft]

I think whatever poker book (within reason) one buys will pay for its' self eventually. That is to say that you undersatnd and can properly apply the concepts. I'll probably never stop reading books even if it is the same ones I have right now. I do have a list of about 20 more poker books I would like to read though. Have two of them coming in the mail right now. I even own a copy of and have read Hellmuth's book despite bad reviews. Even if it is one little thing that you can pick up and save yourself a bet in a certain situation the money saved will add up and over time will pay the book off. For those of us who play 1000+ hands per day it doesn't take long.

I liked your story and hope you keep reading.

[AJo Go All In]

you've put forth two completely different explanations:

1) you decided to call down and not raise because you thought you could make more money by inducing a big bluff from him, and your objective was to squeeze out every possible penny from your Q5 and "let him hang himself". you also pride yourself in being the cause of his tilt.

2) check-raising would be considered rude in your game and you didn't want to rock the boat. it's a "friendly" game, and there was no reason to upset the bad players.


these arguments are pretty much completely contradictory.

[dogmeat]

Alright, you "still don't play the garbage hands", well thanks for straightening me out. Dogmeat

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think they are sensitive to the extent that one check-raise will create animosity. But I don't want to beat them to the extent that playing becomes no fun for them, or even worse, they start to play better against me.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you think calling down a bluff and then showing off to all your buddies with a Doyle Brunson play is going to create the proper atmosphere, and maybe not change the way this guy bluffs in the future? But check-raising, or hell even betting out on the turn is somehow wrong?

I think you are just trying to justify your play by any weak concoction you can come up with. Just admit you might not have played it perfectly and be done with it. You did make a good read in any case.