Understanding this hand will make us all better.

[Diplomat]

Good god I type slow. Seven responses before I could finish typing mine.

As I mentioned in my first post, I agree, they will call 2 if they will call 1. I think this makes raising ok.

-Diplomat

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero limps on button with K 6 , making a remark about how loose it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just my opinion, not saying anyone is a bad person or other than an uncommonly good fellow and exceptional gambler -- but I've always found the loose call comment lame.

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
It is wrong to think that playing these types of hands well is a major aspect of winning poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

while this statement is true, i think the original poster meant to present a situation where you flop a favorable hand and good arguments can be made to play either aggressively or not from this point on.

personally, i vote for calling since the hero is likely to be behind (even though he might be the favorite to win heads up) and all of the cards that can improve his hand on the turn or river will likely to make his hand best (as opposed to complete or improve someone else's hand).

Kenny

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you follow the format, A. B. C. Describe the rest of the way you play the hand after calling for A, for example, "I'll call here and if I get a caller and a check-raiser I'll three-bet, etc?"

Then for B and C assume you strayed from your plan and did those things and write new ones

sorry to be a pain

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, this is a lot like homework. Aren't you suppose to be in NYC right now? Why are you posting hands?

Anway, I think I call the flop as I likely have 14 clean outs against all opponents so no need to limit the field.

Given that hero raised and isolated against the maniac, I like the flop 4 bet.

On the turn, I would continue to bet.

[bdk3clash]

Cool hand. I'm strictly a low-limit roller, but I'll give my thoughts.

[ QUOTE ]

A. Write a gameplan for the hand from this point forward and explain the reasons for your actions. Ignore the obvious preflop debate. You played the hand, we're worried about postflop play, cause that's where the money is here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm calling here to keep the other two players around for when (OK, if) I hit my [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] or 2-pair/trips.

If the turn is a rag, I'd probably raise with my second-nut draw (and other outs) if I could get it heads up to try to win the pot. If checked to I'd bet. If one of the EP players bets and someone else called, I'd probably just call and pray for a something on the river.

If checked to on the river after raising the turn, I'd bet. If checked to on the river after having called the turn, I'd check behind and lose.

[ QUOTE ]
B. Let's assume you raised the flop and it's folded to lady who hesitantly three-bets. Now revise your gameplan for the rest of the hand. Call? Cap and check turn? Cap and bet turn? Be thourough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call, call the turn if I don't hit, and check-call the river if I don't hit.

[ QUOTE ]
C. You decided to cap the flop. Turn brings a total brick. revise your gameplan again. check or bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bet. If she raises, I call and call the river if I don't hit. If she calls my turn bet, I bet the river and call a raise. Might as well take a stab at the pot--because of "my" aggressive play at the bigger streets, the pot is now big enough to make a play at, right? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
It is wrong to think that playing these types of hands well is a major aspect of winning poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, can you give a broad definition of "these types"? I would have assumed that the decision of whether or not to isolate/take control on the flop was a fundamental one in all cases, though the decision is close in this particular hand.

[DcifrThs]

First Id like to say that although this is a very interesting hand to think about and could be played many ways it is one that is not going to add much to your win at the end of the day (i.e.- pretty small pot, standard draw, may make showdown w/ best hand even if unimproved b/c "sane overly aggressive" asian lady was pushing a worse draw than yours). further i don't know to what degree or extent "understanding this hand will make us all better" as if this is the key to the magic kingdom of three-big-bets-an-hour-ville. and i therefore agree with david that this is good food for thought but not steroids for the muscular $5/hr win rate. no worries though, posting and thinking and reading and playing and watching and learning will pump that bad boy up to the GOVERNATOR type soon enough ;-)

for the record mine ain't much better overall but the small sample from 10/20 and 15/30 in vegas (60 hrs) is surprisingly large (due to luck and WAAAAAAAIIIIITING for the goodies).

A. step 1) what does OAA (over aggressive asian) have? i have a loooonnnngggg list since ive seen many an OA[A] have not so sane holdings even though i had at one point labeled them as "sane"
(bellagio 15/30, korean man in blue sweater sits down and seems initially to play ok, then enters many pots w/ just calls-i begin to change my opinion from "tight unknown" to "fairly loose-passive", then he degenerates over varying times to "loose-aggressive" and "super loose passive"(the difference being playing 1/3 or 2/3 hands vs. 4/5 or worse) and one time showed me a pair of threes during his loose aggressive stage after i called him down with middle pair after he bet flop and i raised to isolate with probable best hand here after watching his poor aggressive play i didn't want a ten calling as well: 98s on [kt965 non suited on flop] board in late position)

BUT, i digress just to show that sane may be a function of the time that the lady has been playing and she could change or be more or less sane at any given time (things i see with "over aggressive 'sane'" people. i don't want to sound racist here either but i tend to see OAA type people as less "mean reverting" than other typical aggressive players. for some reason korean, japanese, and chinese (not so much phillipean and s-e asians) seem to be very volatile at times and i leave the table without a one-to-five word classification other than "wow."

My preferred game plan is call and hope for a few overcalls from bb, t1 and t2 (big blind, terrible 1 and terrible 2). I don't know how likely it is for bb t1 and t2 to call raises with various hands b/c i don't know in what way they are terrible but one of them might call the raise but either way i'd still want to just call. another reason to call here is that i've found when in games w/ OAA type people i choose (just me here) to sometimes make the choice of a play between two faily even choices that has the lower st. dev. (only when the EV won't change too much either way) Therefore i call here most if not all the time unless i NEED to isolate for some reason. if i get a few calls and turn blanks and its checked i check. if nobody overcalls and its checked (not likely from OAA) i bet b/c a check at that point from OAA signals "i'm ready to fold here" or "im gunna c-r (check raise) you if you think i'm ready to fold here." with the latter being less likely since if i just called the flop why would the OAA suddenly think i'd bet if she checked to she could c-r? after all, all i've done this whole hand is call... if nobody calls and she bets turn i call a good portion of the time and raise if: a) she bets too fast, signalling pushing that draw w/ a weak-to-no hand, b) splashes pot, or c) otherwise tells me her hand is worse than mine is unimproved. if river blanks again i'll have to see texture of board and OAA while she bets to determine what to do but i'll most likely call as pot is decent now and OAA could be pushing a varity of hands as long as i don't feel she may have backed into a hand but thats a hard feeling to justify so id call a good portion here unimproved. if i improve in turn and/ or river i'm obviously playing OAA's game with her and betting/raising on the bigger streets as much as possible.

B. i choose to raise to isolate and build pot w/ strong draw while not exactly knowing where i'm at. she calls i play hand as aggressor the rest of the way through, betting when checked to, raising if bet b/c of the weak call from OAA on flop. if she 3bets i r-r (reraise) b/c its still smaller street and i may convince her i do in fact have that q if shes puhing the 8. this may result in being shown an odd hand like q8 or 86 but i feel thats unlikely. if unimproved and she bets i call on turn (if cap didn't slow her down she may a) have real hand or b) be in crazy aggressive mode so i call to draw in either case). again if improved i bet/raise whenever possible (by improved i'm thinking 6 or heart, with a king i may slow it down a bit b/c of possibility of being shown k8 but that again is pretty unlikely)

I think that just about covers it...q? c? [questions? comments?]

Again, good and interesting hand to post. i like the thinking involved but not so much the overstated learning value. I think you (badbeetz) may be assuming it is VERY valuable b/c all 4 winning players play it differently but that should actually show that there can't be TOO much to learn because there might not be that much change in ev from one to the other.

anyway, i'm done. whew.
-Barron

[Tommy Angelo]

"It is wrong to think that playing these types of hands well is a major aspect of winning poker."

Hey, I was going to say that.

The reasoning of this thread strikes me like this:

Some players do things differently than others.

Some players score differently than others.

Therefore, if you can find a situation in which several players of similar score would do things differently, then you have uncovered a consequential situation, one in which the various choices have significantly different expectation.

I read the thread and came to an opposite conclusion. If similarly scoring players would all play a certain situation differently, then it probably doesn't matter to any of their bottom lines which betting choice is made. All choices have roughly the same EV.

Generally, I think of pair-and-a-flush-draw hands as not much mattering what I do with them anyway, so my conclusion this time falls into line with my hunch.

Tommy

[elysium]

hi bad
ok, you have all the conditions for entry, but its so ev marginal without other considerations like a short stacked BB or needing to slow the orbit velocity of a button moving at too high a rate of speed; you may need to make this pre-flop call just to signal to the back field that you don't raise as much as people say you do. and it's almost always imperative that you call if you're the one responsible for the speeding button.

there are situations in this spot when you shouldn't call, but we won't get into that.

on the flop, i would feed the button a little fuel. in this spot, a fast button is better than a slow one. so increase the forward speed of the button a little with a raise.

if the better finds enough purchase to feed the button more fuel still, you will now almost certainly have a show-down. you therefore need to lift your foot off the buttons accelerator peddle, and call to slow-down the button again. if your foot slips and you hit the gas, you'll have an image problem to contend with that causes opponents in the back field who folded to dig down and find the button's accelerator peddle in later rounds. so here's the thing;

unless you have a high speed button strategy, usually set some reasonable speed limit by staying away from reraises when the reraise doesn't have strategic or monetary value. if you like a fast button game, then boost the juice from late position when you have a strong made hand. this hand bad isn't strong enough for that either. reraising will only hurt you. i would never reraise in this spot. call 100% of the time.

if the turn bricks and button momentum is feeding off its own orbit, give the button a little free play by allowing your hand to improve at no cost. this will also keep the button's speed limit at good healthy pace.

[mike l.]

i flat call the flop cause i want other people in. this overrides anything else going on like buying free card, buying more outs, etc, etc. the pot is not big, i want my hand disguised, and i want to draw for cheap. btw i do not think this is at all close or debatable.

this is 100% how i would play it. put some callers in between the bettor and i and i raise it to build a pot, oftentimes take a free river, and so on. if i raise i always cap in this scenario. and if checked to on the turn brick i check.

and i have to add in that i fold this preflop about 90% of the time. most of you should as well, hardly any of you are good enough to play it +EV.