Party 3/6: Summoning my inner calling station....

[cnfuzzd]

Assuming that BB has a pocket pair lower than 88 but not 77 or 22, you have 13 outs on the turn, correct?

peace

john nickle

[Rubeskies]

I think the reason not to bet this flop and go after the pot is the size, only 4.33 SB or whatever. You probably don't have the best hand, people love to slowplay trips and chase overcards. I think you need to pick your spots better.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the reason not to bet this flop and go after the pot is the size, only 4.33 SB or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that makes it the perfect reason to go after this flop.

[Rubeskies]

But can't you win very little and potentially lose a lot?


Are you saying because the pot is small the usual party poker player realizes this and decides not to chase? You may be giving them too much credit.

[sthief09]

Firstly, I never said that this was a "loose" game, and secondly, I think it's just foolish to assume that "no one" is going to fold this flop.

Party Poker 3/6 is a loose game. I've yet to see more than a handful of tables that aren't loose. Saying "no one is going to fold" is an exaggeration, but the point is you're not going to steal the pot, unless you decide to fire a second barrel unimproved, which would be terrible.


I don't see how using my position to try to steal a pot on a board that likely missed everyone is "overaggro." And you're suggesting I fold to the flop checkraise HU when my opponent likely has just a low PP.


fine. it's not overaggressive. it's just overzealous. everyone has to fold something like 15% of the time, and your J or T has to be good (that is, you're not dominated) when you hit, for this to be profitable. on a K77 board, you'll have better luck, since QJ or QT can't call.

the reason I'd fold to the check-raise is because most of the time it's going to be marginal, and occasionally it'll be terrible, like you pick up a pair or a 4 outer against trips.

It seems like you really have swung to the opposite pole from LAG.

yeah I'm pretty weak-tight now, and I used to be loose-aggressive, so maybe one day I'll be tight-aggressive [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[sthief09]

well there's a balance: in a big pot you're less likely to steal it, but you'll win more money and thus don't need to succeed as often. in a small pot, there's less to win, so you have to succeed more often.

[StellarWind]

I do not believe you should bet this flop against three opponents with any two cards. For all practical purposes that is what you did. It is substantially +EV to take a free card and hope something good happens. It's hard to see how putting a bet in this tiny pot with jack-high will increase your EV enough to pay for the cost.

Anyway you got busted. You are getting 7-1 to call the flop with an obviously worse hand. You may have 6.5 outs counting the weak backdoor, but often he will have a seven, pocket deuces, or dominate one of your overcards. Your average outs is probably about four. Your implied odds are essentially nil because your outs are so often dead and he has redraw equity when they are good.

This looks like an easy fold.

[ QUOTE ]
Since I put my opponent on a low pocket pair

[/ QUOTE ]
Pocket pairs are uncommon hands. He took a free play and can have any two nonraising cards.

Pocket pairs TT or lower that missed the flop: 39 hands
Deuces: 126 hands
Sevens including 72 and 77: 91 hands
22: 3 hands

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
You may have 6.5 outs counting the weak backdoor, but often he will have a seven, pocket deuces, or dominate one of your overcards.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, an apparent TAG is going to blow everyone out of this pot if he actually has the monster under the bed? And will he really checkraise very often with a hand like QJo/QTo/KJo etc.? (I'm assuming that most other Bdwy combos would have been raised PF)



[ QUOTE ]

Pocket pairs TT or lower that missed the flop: 39 hands
Deuces: 126 hands
Sevens including 72 and 77: 91 hands
22: 3 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are asking me to assume that an apparent TAG would checkraise with any seven? And his having a 2 is really not much worse for me than his having a PP, since even if he has T2/J2 I still have him dominated if a J or T falls. The only way his 2x is worse for me is when he has A2/K2/Q2 and I hit my J/T while he then hits one of his cards on the other card--which would be quite a parlay.

[zamora]

i loathe the turn call [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

just because you are putting him on a low pocket pair you can't count all your possible outs as full outs, can you?

what about those times when your very precise read isn´t 100% accurate? You are most likely either a little behind, way behind, or lightyears behind.

i doubt if this is a long term winner. but it is a very interesting hand.

btw, i think a fairly decent player can play a seven this way. even in a small pot. At 3/6 you will fairly often get coldcalls from overcards, a deuce, gutshot draws, and some seriously sick hands.

btw II, its interesting how "seemed to be fairly decent, if not actually a TAG" has transformed into an "apparent TAG" as you are trying to make your case. A definition that in either case turned out to be very wrong.

[Tosh]

Thats fine when you have a hand/draw/anything to protect, you have nothing in a small pot with 3 opponents. Noone will think less of you if you take your free card this time.