Heaving rocks

[Tilt]

I haven't been getting paid for my hands at this table. So I have raised preflop each of the last 12 hands in an effort to get some action. Unfortunately the action has not gone my way and I have been forced to weakly drop on a lot of weak flops.

Villain 1 is rocky and really only pushes the nuts. He has $120. Vaillain 2 is weak tight and has been tilted, she has $35. I have $180.

I have Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in MP. Villain 1 is BB, Villain 2 is UTG.

Villain 2 limps, I raise to $5, 1 caller behind + 2 villains. Pot is $20.

FLOP 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 10 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
Villain 1 bets $4, Villain 2 pots it, $28 to go to me. I call. Player behind me folds. Villain 2 min raises, another $28, this sets Villain 2 in, I call.

TURN 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (pot is $106)
Villain check, I bet $50, Villain 2 calls leaving him ~$10 behind I think.

RIVER A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
I set him in and he calls.
<font color="white">
Results
Villain 1 has 6D,10D,10H,JD
Villain 2 has 4D,3D,9C,9H

</font>

Questions:
1) Anyone raise this flop on either opportunity based on the action?
2) What do you think of Villain 1's play of this hand?

[ QUOTE ]

1) Anyone raise this flop on either opportunity based on the action?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your line. There certainly is an argument for simply pushing here and you may end up in an all-in coup anyway with the orginal bettor still to act, but this way allows you to fold if an open pair hits on the turn. If Villian 1 does raise it up, you certainly have enough equity to go along for the ride.

[ QUOTE ]

2) What do you think of Villain 1's play of this hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont like it at all. One of his opponents is clearly drawing and he likely has the other one dominated. The rainbow flop is a good thing, but the 9-10 hit a lot of decent drawing hands. The problem is that he won't really know which outs he has to dodge. He holds 2 potential blocking outs, so if he is going to raise he should have shoved his entire stack in. This way, he may force the drawer to drop if the drawer is the big stack. Why force yourself into making a tough decision on the turn when any card from 6 to K that doesn't pair the board is a possible worry.

Villain 1 should have repotted on the flop, and probably given some thought to folding on the turn. With a rainbow flop Villain 1 has to know he's up against at least one and perhaps two opponents with straight draws.

I probably would not push on the flop, but it's a close decision. If Villain 2 had a bigger stack and would stay in, I might push. I would call Villain 1's bet on the turn and/or bet (as you did) regardless of what card comes if the board doesn't pair. Otherwise the play is fine.

[Tilt]

I did not push the flop because I was sure that the small stack had a set, and i suspected that Villain 1 did as well. My thinking here is that by just calling I retain the option value of position. On a paired board, I can muck, and still have odds to call on a blank.

The trouble I have sometimes with this line is if the turn is blank card that puts a flush draw out there. Then if Villain 1 shoves me all in, can I call if I suspect that one of the villains now has a set + flush draw?

[Piiop]

Why did you only bet 50 on the turn if he has ~60 left and the pot is 100?

[Tilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you only bet 50 on the turn if he has ~60 left and the pot is 100?

[/ QUOTE ]

Great question. In hindsight I wish I had bet $40, but I just didn't act correctly in my time window. The reason is that a mistake bad players will sometimes make is to fold in a case like this to the all-in, but will call something just a bit less, failing to realize they are committed to the the all-in on the river no matter what falls. I had seen this player make bad decisions like that before. If he has middle or bottom set, for instance, he might (irrationally I concede) reevaluate at that moment whether he should be all-in if the all-in player may have him beat. So I bet less to effectively get the $60 in the middle; economically it makes little difference but it sometimes matters psychologically.

The downside is sometimes the board pairs and I'm left wondering whether I should save $10. I never do, but stupidly it does cross my mind.

[ QUOTE ]
The trouble I have sometimes with this line is if the turn is blank card that puts a flush draw out there. Then if Villain 1 shoves me all in, can I call if I suspect that one of the villains now has a set + flush draw?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the possible flush outs remove too many straight outs unless you also have a flush draw that, while not the nuts, might be good.

[BluffTHIS!]

If you want to get paid then yes you should generally be more aggressive on your draws, but not in that spot where it went post oak bet then raise and you are likely against a set or two pair. If you had had a flush draw however, then you could have done it in order to get paid by a tight player who would fold a set when a draw gets there, and also to buy outs for a flush draw by trying to get a bigger flush draw to fold.

But mainly you want to bet your very good draws and raise with them against a preflop raiser marked with aces to try to win the pot there. If he actually hit the flop with his sidecards and reraises then you have a hand to fall back on. Betting your good draws will make it easier to get called when you have a set.

Also you have to occasionally make some bluffs on the river, including some big ones. You should pick your spots so that you win most of them, but those you don't should help you to get action on the river with your made hands.

[LA_Price]

[ QUOTE ]
But mainly you want to bet your very good draws and raise with them against a preflop raiser marked with aces to try to win the pot there. If he actually hit the flop with his sidecards and reraises then you have a hand to fall back on. Betting your good draws will make it easier to get called when you have a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've thought about this idea a ton in a game theory sense of playing against your opponents style. I've come to believe that it is the opposite of what you say. Betting with your good hands will make it easier for you to bluff with your draws. I believe this is the idea that doyle was talking about with his style in no-limit hold'em and I believe it applies to omaha as well. Basically you're going to flop more good draws than made hands so wouldn't it be nice to always win with both of them.