|
|
#22
10-17-2005, 01:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 77 river decision
[ QUOTE ]
My hand's almost identical to that hand problem. SSH advocates betting into 4 players in that situation, why wouldn't we here. [/ QUOTE ] In this example only one player has checked leaving 3 people to act behind you and in the book 2 have already checked and 2 are left to act. This has some negative effects. First, you are more likely to be called by someone who has position on you. Second, you have less information about your opponents hands. Third, the book example has a flush draw present, so there is some value to be gained when draws call you down. Not so in this example, there are few hands which can profitably call a flop bet and a turn bet which are not way ahead of you. It may be correct to bet here (I definitely would against 2-3 players so 4 is borderline for me) but I think you can often get yourself into trouble in these sorts of situations. The more likely your opponents are to call you down with second or bottom pair though (or ace high), the more correct it is to bet, so you have to take the caliber of your opponents into consideration. 
|
|
#23
10-17-2005, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 river decision
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] sounds like a good card to raise for villain then, since he would think we're less likely to have one [/ QUOTE ] I can't see a passive villain raise hero without a king, especially after our here has represented a king the whole way. [/ QUOTE ] yeah I would definitely agree with this against even an unknown at this limit. the fact that he's passive just solidifies it. just showing the "he doesn't have one" argument goes both ways, as food for thought. this villain wouldn't think like that, though.
|
|
#24
10-17-2005, 01:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 river decision
(grunch)
If you're beat here, you were beat at the flop. I think this river improved your hand, so I would probably bet/fold. A c/r would probably be bad, because you don't want to give villain a free SD.
|
|
#25
10-17-2005, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 river decision
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Whats wrong with limping 7,7 here ?? do u mean he should raise as he's first in here ?? thanks. [/ QUOTE ] No, I mean he should've folded 77 from EP. [/ QUOTE ] This is a very loose table, so any pair from any position has good implied odds to play, I believe. Even if someone raises behind you, you can expect at least 1 or 2 cold callers, and one of the blinds defending.
|
|
#26
10-17-2005, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 river decision
[ QUOTE ]
Third, the book example has a flush draw present, so there is some value to be gained when draws call you down. Not so in this example, there are few hands which can profitably call a flop bet and a turn bet which are not way ahead of you. [/ QUOTE ] Well put, deception5. There are no draws. If you're called, you're ahead of 66, 55, 33 and a crappy ace. And, generally speaking, the higher the overcard, the more likely it is that someone have played it preflop. At these limits, people tend to play "any ace, any king". (Or, for that matter, in a really fishy game, "any queen, any jack"! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) Why didn't you slow down on the turn? Why did you call his raise on the river - when it was really, really, really obvious you were behind? Isn't it clear to you that you took this marginal hand too far? This will get you get you in a lot of trouble and cost you a lot of money in the long run. (Yes, a pair of sevens against FIVE opponents is a marginal hand.) Let me quote the well respected poker author Lou Krieger here (on the subject of small pocket pairs): [ QUOTE ] Lately I've seen a spate of questions posted to the Internet newsgroup rec.gambling.poker and other online poker forums about how to play small pocket pairs properly and what to do when you're dealt smallish suited connectors. Questions like these may seem elementary if you've played poker for any length of time, but with so many newcomers taking up the game, it's well worth reviewing some basic concepts every now and then. Small pairs, and we're talking about a pair of sevens or lower, can be thought of as drawing hands of sorts. And if you think of them that way, you shouldn't go too far wrong. After all, a big pair, like aces, kings, or queens, frequently wins without improving. They're that good. But a small pair usually needs help. And other than sticking its nose in the midst of a 7-6-4 flop and getting lucky on the turn or river, a pair of fives can improve only by flopping a set. The nice thing about flopping a set of fives, or any other set for that matter, is that by the time your opponent suspects you've flopped such a beast, it will cost him some chips and there's not much he's going to be able to do about it except pay the piper. The other side of this coin is that the odds against flopping a set are 7.5-to-1, which means it's not going to happen all that often. When you have a hand that's a long shot, and drawing to improve a small pair certainly falls into that category, you want to keep the cost as low as possible. From a strategic perspective, you're a lot better off playing a small pair for one bet than cold-calling two bets in a raised pot. The message is there for all to see, and a raise is a statement from your opponent that he's holding a big hand. While he may be holding nothing more than two big cards, his hand also might contain a pair that's a lot bigger than your pair of fives, which makes it a prohibitive favorite. But when you act from late position, you have an opportunity to see whether any of your opponents have raised before it's your turn to decide what to do with your cards. If someone raises, you can safely toss your small pair away. Otherwise, if there are a few callers, you can see the flop for one bet, and if you get lucky and hit your set, you're in good shape. If the flop misses you - and the eyes of facecards are staring up at you from the flop - you can safely toss your hand away if anyone bets. Against a relatively large field, chances are pretty good that flop has helped someone, and your unimproved pair of fives is now an also-ran. But if no one has called the blinds preflop when you're near or on the button, you can raise, because your pair of fives figures to be the favorite against whatever random cards the two blinds might hold. Do you see what's happening here? Against a scattering of opponents who hold good enough hands to voluntarily commit money to the pot, your pair of fives is really drawing to improve, while against one or two opponents who hold random cards in their hand and had to post a blind bet, like it or not, you probably have the best hand and ought to raise with it, hoping to win the confrontation right there. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#27
10-17-2005, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 river decision
[ QUOTE ]
This is a very loose table, so any pair from any position has good implied odds to play, I believe. Even if someone raises behind you, you can expect at least 1 or 2 cold callers, and one of the blinds defending. [/ QUOTE ] This is true. At a passive, fishy table, I too limp in with small pocket pairs. But the whole "implied odds" aspect of it assumes that you know how to play them postflop. Our hero here took his hand too far, and if he plays 77 like this every time, it's going to cost him a lot of money.
|
|
#29
10-17-2005, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 river decision
hand is fine. bet/fold the river.
we're betting not only to fold out people, but for value. we have a made hand and any higher cards that fold= more outs. if we don't fold everyone: that's fine, they're playing the "drawing" game not us, have made a mistake calling our flop bet, and have to get lucky on the turn. if he has a weak King then he's playing his hand correctly and that's poker, but to check/fold this flop is very sad. ps: to consider pocket pairs as drawing is crap.
|
|
#30
10-17-2005, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 77 river decision
[ QUOTE ]
LOL [/ QUOTE ] Pardon? I'm pretty sure Krieger knows a whole lot more about poker than you or all of us. Look, man, you misplayed a hand. Bottom line. That's all there is to it. And that's why you posted here in the first place, right? You wanted input, so I gave you mine. You don't have to listen to me. After all, my name last name isn't Greenstein or Sklansky. If you think my advice suck, don't take it to heart. If you think I suck, ignore me. But try to believe me when I say that I'm trying to help you. Peace, keetz
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
