Easy Street

[bicyclekick]

While I agree seems atypical, how would all of you haters have played it?

Would you have raised still pf when you knew the bb was gonna raise? Would you limp-re-raise? Would you just call? Would you check/fold the flop because it contains an ace? Would you check-raise anywhere?

I bet if you were there you would have had a hard time playing this hand too, because...well, I think it was a decently hard hand to play well.

[Tommy Angelo]

"You mentioned flopping a set heads up and just check calling the flop/turn/river - and then not raising the river b/c the flush and straights got there."

What I meant was that if the scare card had not come, I would have check-raised the river. I did not mean to say that I thought he had actually made a straight or flush just because the scare card got there. I had no idea. But I did know that if he did make a hand that beat mine, he would probably reraise my checkraise on the river, and I would definitely call. But that is only a small part of why I did not checkraise.

With one modest pair, I thought he still might bet the river. But let's say he would check-behind half the time that he had a hand that he would call my river bet with. In that line, I lose a half a bet per trial, compared to betting out on the river.

Another consideration is how often he would call my checkraise on the river with one pair. To whatever degree he wouldn't, my non-check-raise on the river gains value.

But much of the time, enough of the time, I think, he would be drawing dead to my hand on the turn, which is partly why I did not checkraise the turn, and much of the time that he bluffed the turn, he would then go ahead and fire again on the river. He had not been trained yet. When he sees me just call with this hand, that's part of the training. That's another reason why I did not checkraise the turn or river. Ideally, eventually, if he adjusts to less bluffing, then I adjust a little bit faster, to less calling down with ace-high.

Another reason is that if he did make a hand that beat mine, and I just checkcall the river as if I was calling down with ace-high, which I'd already done a couple times when it was right, and then he shows his rivered flush or whatever and I muck like nothing happened, then I think it somehow adds to the general confusion, even though my hand is not seen.



Tommy

[dansalmo]

Hi Tommy,

You played it just like Bob would have, start to finish [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I guess one big difference is if Bob had the JJ and you had the T7 you would not have played it the same way as Bob would.

DanS

[Nelson]

"The thing I appreciate about players like (I'll call him) Bob is that his very existence proves that anything is possible when it comes to how opponents might play. So best be ready for anything without wondering why, I figure."
______________

I hope to finish the entire post later because I really enjoyed this part.

[andyfox]

There's a beginner's forum. Most people probably realize that A) this is not a forum for beginners; B) quantity of posts means how many posts somebody has made; and C) Tommy never says in his posts "do what I do".

One reason why I love Tommy is because he never demeans another person because of the way he played a particular hand of cards.

[Lawrence Ng]

Tommy,

Your posts are truly a pleasure to read...it offers great entertainment value. I sincerely hope one day you will write a book with a compilation of these stories.

Lawrence

[bicyclekick]

I too, could never get bored of reading his anecdotes...

keep em comin tommy...

[Josh W]

Tommy....

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy.

Tommy.

There is a girl in Sacramento. I'm in love with her. She and I...click.

I'm not gay, and I don't like unicorns. But I think that you and I click, too. When I was up at Bay 101, and you and I grabbed breakfast, you and I talked about the "check/call" strategy. I really was hoping that it would stay on the DL. The QT. Whatever.

You've ruined it.

Poker is becoming so aggressive. People have preached 'aggression' for years about poker. Bluffing on TV preaches aggression. And the thing is this...raising often costs two bets, so you need to be right 2/3 of the time. But unpredictability has increased dramatically. So, 2/3 doesn't happen enough.

And people can make a killing by check/calling (IF THEY HAVE ANY HAND READING ABILITY).

I played 10-20 on pokerstars a few months ago with a bunch of 2+2ers...it was a 6 handed table with glen, SpicyF, El Diablo, Steve Giufre, and Duke.

I won 1200 in a very short period of time by basically check/calling. I did suck out (6 outer) in a $300 pot. But other than that, I check/called. And killed the game. Granted, this game was more aggressive than most, as there was serious "oneupmanship" going on.

And now, you've spilled the beans. Thanks for nothing!!

I wanna unclick, now.

Josh

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]

I played 10-20 on pokerstars a few months ago with a bunch of 2+2ers...it was a 6 handed table with glen, SpicyF, El Diablo, Steve Giufre, and Duke.

I won 1200 in a very short period of time by basically check/calling. I did suck out (6 outer) in a $300 pot. But other than that, I check/called. And killed the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your recollection of how you won in that game is inaccurate.

[Luke]

Thanks Tommy. I think I'm finally starting to understand you and your game - at least a little bit.

Calling down with bottom set. Calling the flop with K7 on an ace high flop and getting a free river card and showdown. It's starting to click.

Your posts remind me that in this game of poker, the variables are always changing and these changes mean I need to be flexible in the way I approach my play.

As for if you played the jacks "correctly", I'd have to say I can't see myself every playing it that way but then again who knows. I wasn't there and you were so maybe your approach was spot on.

But to me the specific hand is irrelevant. I just appreciate the overall message that I was able to take away. Thanks again...

Luke