MONSTER DRAW in an unraised pot

[NYCNative]

[ QUOTE ]
The first check raiser promply moves allin to get called just as quick with top set and the first check raiser had KK which was limped in LP

[/ QUOTE ]I have to assume that you knew this was the case. The fact is that you weren't going to run into two other people betting draws that hard. You were against two people who made their hands - hands you could break.

The scenario was either a guy with an overpair verses a set (what happened) or set-over-set. (Outside shot someone had two pairs, I suppose.)

In both cases, the guy with the overpair or smaller set was less than 5% to win. You had about a 40% chance to win in either case and the guy with 8s had a 55% shot.

Knowing that one of your opponents is as big of an underdog in Hold 'Em as you can get, knowing you had a 40% shot to take three people's cash there would you have done it? Does the pot odds say such a play is smart?

Maybe busting one person as a 40% dog doesn't make sense, but when you have a chance to take two people's money as you did, I think it prices you into gambling. Can someone who knows numbers a little better than I do cerify or correct this, please?

The main issues people had above for folding was that you were up against bigger draws but common sense didn't dictate two people betting draws that hard and the reality bore that out.

Incidentally, I checked the numbers with a person having top two pairs: Against the overpair and that you were actually in the best shape, favored to win about 50% of the time; against the set of 8s the two-pair guy was pretty much gone and you had the same 40% shot as the above scenarios.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that you weren't going to run into two other people betting draws that hard. You were against two people who made their hands - hands you could break.


[/ QUOTE ]
OK, that explains
[ QUOTE ]
SB raises to $15, BB raises to $30

[/ QUOTE ]
but what about
[ QUOTE ]
UTG+2 bets $4, MP1 calls $4

[/ QUOTE ]

[NYCNative]

Beats me but apparently they folded. Maybe they had a little something cooking but got out when the heat came. It would be appropriate there to make a teaser bet with the nut flush or an open-ended straight draw. The difference is that Hero had both. Those two were quite smart to get out; I'm still not so sure about hero. I still believe he had the correct odds to make that call. And since I was thinking this before Hero revealed what happened, I can't be accused of results-oriented thinking. I can be accused of being simply wrong however. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't wish to get into a debate over whether you are right or wrong, but using the reasoning of "Doyle would play it this way" is very weak.

[/ QUOTE ]However, saying you would play it another way is somehow better?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never suggested any particular way that I feel it should be played. I am merely pointing out that you are using faulty logic to support your case.

[CaptainNurple]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting that Doyle is God and you're clueless but I asked a simple question as to why he would feel differently and I have yet to recieve an answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to explain it to you best I can.

All of the arguing so far about what Doyle's method of play would dictate in this situation has reflected a few misunderstandings of his playing style as explained in SS 1&2, let me try to clarify:

The main error, and the most serious in my opinion, would be checking the flop. Brunson writes that he almost NEVER check-raises, he considers it to be an extremely weak play. The reason is that when he bets on a big draw like this, it's because he actually has two chances to win: he can either pick up the pot right there if everybody folds, or he can catch his draw to win if he gets called.

Why? Because based on his aggressive table image that he works hard to maintain, he is able to pick up lots of small pots with those reasonable flop bets, and all those small pots pay for the bigger pots he loses occasionally on aggressively played drawing hands.

From that you can see why he doesn't like check-raising: it nearly eliminates the chance that he's going to be able to pick up the pot right there, since the bettor will have now committed a good number of chips to the pot.

In this situation, if you're playing by his method, the correct play would be making a reasonable bet on the flop (pot sized or so) as though you've already made your hand. If you get played back at, then you would probably push. This is NOT to say that you've got the best of it at this point, and this is another important consideration with Brunson's method of play. You're probably at least a slight dog here if you get played back at, but Brunson writes that he would go ahead and get all his chips to the center because he wants his opponents to be docile, he wants them to be slightly afraid of him so that they won't be playing back at him in the FUTURE.

In other words, he'll often put himself in negative EV situations simply to generate play later on when he catches a big hand. This helps to explain why people have made comments that at the lower limits this may not be as effective a method of play: it requires opponents who care how you're playing against them and who can be cudgled into submission, which may or may not be the case here depending on the table dynamic. (Incidentally, Doyle also notes that he usually loses 3 out of 4 of his buy-ins, but that he's such an aggressive player that about 1 out of 4 times he'll get on a big rush and more than make up for the losses).

Hopefully that helps clarify things for you, if not please ask and I'll go into more detail, I've studied Doyle's books in-depth and should be able to explain to you his method of play as best I understand it. This was a sketchy explanation, but hopefully sufficient to clarify your question.

SO, based on all that, I also think folding is the correct play here, by failing to bet right out at the flop, you've forfeited your chance at picking up that small pot, and therefore pushing becomes far less attractive because it's almost guaranteed that you're going to get called, and by the number of people betting into the pot, it's safe to assume you're probably a dog at this point. It's a weird situation, because if you had bet at the flop, then pushing may be the correct play, but by checking first, I believe a strong argument can now be made for folding. Although you're going to make your hand here better than 1/3rd of the time, with two likely callers you're getting only slightly positive EV at best, so in this case I DO think that the fact you've only invested 1 BB so far makes this a folder--long term you're marginal +EV in this EXACT situation at best, so why risk the chips? Wait for a better opportunity at such a loose table.

Feel free to ask for clarification, I pounded this out quickly and there may be inconsistencies in my reply.

Just my opinion.

[NYCNative]

That was an excellent post. I agree with you completely.

The things I was taking issue with above were the "fold preflop" and also the fact that some felt that betting the flop was bad.

Again, not that Doyle is God, but in this case, the way he played this same hand would have resulted in a huge win and two opponents tilting. A win-win.

If you are going to play a flop like that with your suited connector, may as well fold pre-flop. Barring flopping a boat, you're not gonna be in better shape.

But if you're going to play those connectors, may as well actually, you know, play them.

I love suited connectors. I was recently in a B&M tourney with 4-2 of spades in SB. BB made a mini-raise and I thought he was trying to steal but wasn't sure and I did want to see a flop it so I just called. Flop came down Q35 rainbow. I checked and villain made a teaser bet which I called being open-ended.

The Ace fell, making my hand. I checked (unlike Doyle, I do check-raise!), he bet, I raised, he went all-in and I called. He was very shocked when I showed the straight. Especially considering he had AQ.

Anyway, the point is that I won a big pot. Had the flop not hit me, I would have gone away and lost a very small one. I'll take that risk vs. reward. Beats being married to a big hand despite all indications that you're beat.

This was a different situation. He did have a choice to make. If I'm playing that hand, I lead off betting. Maybe I fold despite that with the action in front of and behind me, I don't know, but that is the main thing. I would have bet that flop, pot-sized at least.

I am not as reckless/aggressive as Doyle proscribes - I lack the bankroll and ability to read people like he can, I prefer tournaments to ring games which means you can't just buy another rack and I play with a different class of opponent - but I can say that I've won more pots with suited connectors that didn't fully hit until the turn or river than I have pots where I flopped a set.

Anyway, thanks again for the post.

[jeccross]

I have to say I agree, Brunson is definately not as much use as the book is 25 odd years old, Poker has changed alot especially low level internet games, table image is just not anywhere near as important (will anyone even be watching?) and people don't put as much thought into their calls/folds as they should do.

[CaptainNurple]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to say I agree, Brunson is definately not as much use as the book is 25 odd years old, Poker has changed alot especially low level internet games, table image is just not anywhere near as important (will anyone even be watching?) and people don't put as much thought into their calls/folds as they should do.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I think there is certainly truth to this, I do think that it's the "low limit" part of it that makes the biggest difference. As far as higher limits are concerned, Doyle himself even noted in SS2 that he would still advocate this same style of play today, even with all the younger, more aggressive players.

That being said, I think a person can get himself into trouble quickly by blindly following the super system methods, because, as you note, it requires opponents who are putting more thought into their play. (though he discusses that anyway, saying that against poor opponents you pretty much just have to play fundamentally sound poker, not trying anything fancy...so maybe he does know what he's talking about after all, who knows...)

At any rate, I've found a lot of Brunson's methods to be effective at the lower limits. One of the absolute most effective that I've seen is the pot-sized bet after you've raised the flop, regardless of what falls (unless you're sure someone must have caught something big). I've picked up many small pots this way, because you come in PF representing strength, and when you fire out that flop bet, since a lot of the time no one has anything anyway, even poor opponents will get into the habit of folding to you until they've got a good hand. You just have to know how to get away from the hand if you get called or someone plays back at you. And, of course...sometimes you do catch something yourself on that flop, so then it's not a bluff, and the game is on...