Slowplaying.

[Nicmavsfan28]

Aside from flopping the nuts, when do you think the best time is to slowplay? And what starting hand do you look for to execute this play?

[jojobinks]

i don't slowplay before the flop at home games. too many maniacs and calling stations.

after the flop, i need a set on an uncoordinated board, or something equally strong. i just think, in home games, it's not worth it to slow play, almost ever.

[ClonexxSA]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't slowplay before the flop at home games. too many maniacs and calling stations.

after the flop, i need a set on an uncoordinated board, or something equally strong. i just think, in home games, it's not worth it to slow play, almost ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what jojo said.

[CaptLego]

I agree w/ Jojo. Whenever I slowplay, I usually end up regretting it. You're just begging somebody to draw out on you. The only time to slowplay is when you're sure the others are drawing to hands that are worse than the one you've already made. Otherwise, bet enough money that they either fold and you take down the pot right there, or they make a poor call because you're giving them pot odds that don't justify the draw.

So, yeah, flopping (or turning) the nuts pretty much characterizes the times to slowplay.

[RiverDood]

. . . is: WHO do you slowplay against?

I'll consider it if I'm heads up against the table maniac/bully -- especially in NL -- and especially if he outstacks me or we're close. What I'm looking for is someone who can't bear to play check/check for long, and who will start jamming the pot if I'm playing possum.

As other posters have noted, it's best with a hand that's miles ahead of almost anything else conceivable. (i.e. top set on an uncoordinated flop.) Then it's OK to give away a free card so the other player can improve just enough to try to buy the pot. But I'll consider it with two pair on the flop if all the other conditions are right.

In general, it's only worth the deception if I'm heads-up against someone who habitually raises against apparent weakness. It's pointless against a passive opponent. It's way too dangerous preflop, and usually dicey against multiple opponents. (Watch how many times AA gets cracked when people get too cute and slowplay it from the start.) And it's a waste of time if I've got a lot more chips than the opponent. Then they will gladly check as well or make teeny bets until they think they've got the nuts.

Done right, it can help you double up on a hand that might otherwise just harvest the blinds and a limper. But those conditions may happen just 1x/night in a tight game, if that.

[Pocket77s]

I would only slowplay if there is a greater chance my opponents are drawing to a second best hand and will not set up any redraws for anybody else. Basically, ask yourself this "can I afford to give my opponents a free card without too much risk of loosing the entire pot?" if the pot is really small I'd go for a slowplay.

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
The only time to slowplay is when you're sure the others are drawing to hands that are worse than the one you've already made.

[/ QUOTE ]

This on it's own is not sufficient reason to slowplay. If players are gonna fold to a bet then fine, but in most home games and low limit casino/online games players go to far with their hands. The idea behind slow playing is to show some weakness and give people a chance to catch up... if they are just gonna call anyway, slow-playing is simply throwing money away. If you got it bet it!

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
I would only slowplay if there is a greater chance my opponents are drawing to a second best hand and will not set up any redraws for anybody else. Basically, ask yourself this "can I afford to give my opponents a free card without too much risk of loosing the entire pot?" if the pot is really small I'd go for a slowplay.

[/ QUOTE ]

You also have to ask if your opponents will fold if you bet. If they are gonna call your bets, GET SOME MONEY IN THE POT.