A23xs, how does this look?

Preflop: I like the limp, for the reasons Niss said.

Flop: Standard. You have the nut low draw with protection, you have enough equity for a raise to be profitable.

Turn: Your card did not hit, and now you are left only 1/2 the pot and just one card to come. This is the point where I go into a check/call mode. Give me A9h or something working for a high and I think a bet is profitable.

River: Fine.

Overall: You played the hand fine, no real problems. I would have just c/c the turn, but thats not a huge deal.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I flop the nut low draw, so I raise to try to drive out those drawing for the flush/straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boolean - You can raise here if you want, but your reason for raising doesn't make much sense, because you have nothing much to promote to a winner if you knock out the flush/straight draws. You're drawing yourself, and realistically, only for nut-low. You do have an excellent draw - good enough to raise - but you don't really want anybody to fold (except another nut low draw and that's not going to happen). I wouldn't raise here (for a different reason), but I think a raise is fine.

[ QUOTE ]
I think because I don't have any real high draws at this point that I should probably just check/call. Thoughts here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
I make my low, and so I bet

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine.

[ QUOTE ]
/call since the BB is already all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. A better reason to call rather than re-raise is you'll get quartered or sixthed (or eighthed) for low with the ace-deuce nut low roughly two times out of every five.

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I think I played my hand pretty well

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I just disagree with a couple of your reasons for playing as you did.

Buzz

[Boolean]

Okay, I'm sorry for this next post, but I have to. I have a few major questions regarding how some hands are seen to be played on this board and I hope this sparks some debate. My main question is, why should I continue with this hand after the flop, but fold this hand?

I've noticed that for some reason or another, weak low draws are given a lot more validity and respect than weak high hands. I hear "fold high hands when you're drawing for only half the pot," but in this hand it's obvious I'm drawing for only half the pot (this time the low), and I'm told to continue.

Perhaps this is because with the low hand I have counterfeit protection and a few more outs? At the same time, I think this is discounted by the times I only get a quarter of the pot. In my opinion, drawing for half the pot when you have only a low can be *weaker* than drawing for half the pot when you have a high-only hand because when you have the nut flush you are not going to be quartered.

In the end, I would like to see less "you're drawing for half the pot, fold," and more discussion regarding the overall EV of a particular situation. I'd like to see more discussion regarding pot odds and when it is profitable to draw to only half the pot, or a clear analysis that shows that drawing for half the pot with either a high or a low draw is clearly unprofitable.

Thanks,
-Boolean

[benwood]

Please disregard my previous post where I said that I agree with all streets.I don't remember being drunk at the time,so all I can do is plead insanity.Kitaristio is exactly right in his analysis.Good job,sir. Ben

Preflop raise is mandatory with your hand. Any suited ABC hand must get as much money in the pot preflop as possible. If you miss your flush possibility there has to be enough bets in the pot to cover losing money getting quartered on the low. The flop is ok but not a likely scoop, unless runner runner straight comes and holds up. I probably would just call here unless I knew the players well and could get a worse low chasing. You're almost never going to drive out a flush draw and seldom the straight draw. The turn is awful for you, check/call is the proper play here. The river makes your hand and you're in middle position. Whether to bet or go for the check raise is debatable and dependent on the table. Can't determine how I'd play it without being there. Most likely I'd check/call here, figuring there is another A2 out there.

JMO - Knoll

[dcasper70]

[ QUOTE ]
Any suited ABC hand must get as much money in the pot preflop as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
The statement above is true, but not necessarily tied to the statement below
[ QUOTE ]
Preflop raise is mandatory with your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes you'll get more money in the pot preflop with this hand by calling, not raising.
By calling, OP got 3bb in the pot, and (to a lesser extent) left an opening for someone to raise behind.
Had he raised in MP with on caller in front, can he guarantee at least 2 callers and 3bb? Well, at this level I'd say yes about 60% of the time, but that's not my full point.

IMO, the second quote a little short sighted. In fact, I think it's 'mandatory' to limp with this hand maybe 30-40% of the time. It disguises your hand, keeps your opponents guessing when you do raise PF, gives you a cheap out on the piss poor flops, and does all kinds of the other metagame stuff that IS poker.

Sometimes the best play isn't what you'd normally do.
Sometimes the best play doesn't make the most money NOW, but later...

On a side note, Buzz mentioned something about a month ago which has really stuck with me and altered my play. I'm not going to weed through all the novellas that are his posts trying to find it, but it was along the lines of:

I'll raise the top of the hour with a red A2 suited, and the bottom of the hour with a black A2 suited.

Holy Crap! How the heck is someone gonna read this randomness!

So sometimes you raise A23, sometimes you dont.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I'm sorry for this next post, but I have to. I have a few major questions regarding how some hands are seen to be played on this board and I hope this sparks some debate. My main question is, why should I continue with this hand after the flop, but fold this hand?

I've noticed that for some reason or another, weak low draws are given a lot more validity and respect than weak high hands. I hear "fold high hands when you're drawing for only half the pot," but in this hand it's obvious I'm drawing for only half the pot (this time the low), and I'm told to continue.

Perhaps this is because with the low hand I have counterfeit protection and a few more outs? At the same time, I think this is discounted by the times I only get a quarter of the pot. In my opinion, drawing for half the pot when you have only a low can be *weaker* than drawing for half the pot when you have a high-only hand because when you have the nut flush you are not going to be quartered.

In the end, I would like to see less "you're drawing for half the pot, fold," and more discussion regarding the overall EV of a particular situation. I'd like to see more discussion regarding pot odds and when it is profitable to draw to only half the pot, or a clear analysis that shows that drawing for half the pot with either a high or a low draw is clearly unprofitable.

Thanks,
-Boolean

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a lot of difference between the two hands. First, you have a chance to scoop with the hand from this post. You can make a runner runner wheel to scoop. Also, you can still make aces up and have a nut low and have some chance to scoop. In the hand you link, you are drawing at a chance to win half the pot with absolutely no chance whatsoever to scoop. In this hand, it would be very unfortunate for you to make a low on the turn and it not be the nuts on the end (you would have to have 2 running couterfit cards), while your linked hand will have many ways to be the nuts on the turn and spoiled on the end. Finally, if you don't have the high nuts on the end when you have a one way hand, it is very easy to make big mistakes if nut lows play aggressively. They can run you into the high nuts costing you several bets where you didn't have a chance, or drive you out when you are good causing you to make a huge error. You are really only going to make small mistakes with a nut low on the end if you make any mistake at all.