Sample of an advanced play

[joelmick]

I too am not willing to give everything away when it comes to advanced plays. But here is an example of an advanced play by me (joelmick2) that unfortunately didn't work out. See if you can figure out why I played it the way I did? Hint: it has to do with the stack sizes.

***** Hand History for Game 2557317050 *****
$2000 PL Omaha - Thursday, August 18, 18:50:45 EDT 2005
Table Table 54708 (No DP) (Real Money)
Seat 9 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: ragboy ( $2290.50 )
Seat 4: Luckybab ( $1127 )
Seat 6: joelmick2 ( $2109.50 )
Seat 7: IBYY4U ( $7883 )
Seat 9: Don_Wan ( $3693.01 )
Seat 5: Biznatchy ( $2526 )
Seat 2: aladdinsdk ( $1051 )
Seat 3: fialka7 ( $470 )
Seat 10: ReydelMundo1 ( $475.50 )
ReydelMundo1 posts small blind [$10].
ragboy posts big blind [$20].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to joelmick2 [ 7h Td Jc Qh ]
>You have options at Table 52099 Table!.
aladdinsdk raises [$40].
fialka7 calls [$40].
Luckybab folds.
Biznatchy folds.
joelmick2 calls [$40].
IBYY4U folds.
Don_Wan calls [$40].
ReydelMundo1 folds.
ragboy calls [$20].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 4h, Kh, Ah ]
ragboy checks.
aladdinsdk checks.
>You have options at Table 52099 Table!.
fialka7 bets [$207].
>You have options at Table 51998 Table!.
joelmick2 calls [$207].
Don_Wan raises [$500].
ragboy folds.
aladdinsdk folds.
fialka7 folds.
>You have options at Table 51998 Table!.
joelmick2 calls [$293].
** Dealing Turn ** [ Tc ]
joelmick2 checks.
Don_Wan bets [$1414].
joelmick2 is all-In.
kasmo1 has joined the table.
Don_Wan calls [$155.50].
** Dealing River ** [ Ts ]
Don_Wan shows [ Jh, Th, 4c, Qs ] a full house, Tens full of fours.
joelmick2 doesn't show [ 7h, Td, Jc, Qh ] a flush, ace high.
Don_Wan wins $4553 from the main pot with a full house, Tens full of fours.

[The Truth]

I would have raised the flop just enough to put origional bettor all in. If a smaller flush is out hopefully they will recognize this and reraise you. You can then check/raise the turn allin and they'll be commited.

The only problem I have with not raising the pot on the flop is that it lets sets hang out too cheaply. In addition, it keeps the pot smaller, and if the turn gets checked through, you'll river bet wont be enough to stack.

truth

[benkahuna]

My guess is that you didn't raise on the flop so Don Wan would bet again on the turn and give you a chance to force his all in
instead of a possible exit. You had the nuts and induced action so he when he bet on the turn, he was forced to call your all in.

BTW, I appreciate you sharing an interesting hand there at higher limits than I typically play. It's nice to have people not be too guarded about strategy so we can all learn.

[josie_wales]

Hey,

I can uderstand (and agree with) the first flop smooth call. But when it is raised to $500 that puts about $900 in the pot...

I think that a pot that is equal to about half your stack is worth taking down right now.

That said, your "advanced" move of trying to set up a turn check raise all in is not something that I think I agree with because...

(1) If he has a set, he is likely to take the free card.
(2) If he has a low flush, he may again try for a free showdown

In hind site, if you knew exactly he had what he had (2nd nuts) the play is great.

I just think that the pot at $900 is large enough to take down right now.

jw

[joelmick]

When the flop is 3 suited cards and someone makes a pot-size (or close) bet, it is unusual to have more than 1 caller, because there are just not that many hands worth calling with (top or middle set, nut or 2nd nut flush, basically). So when I flat called the bet from the in front from the almost all-in player, I was not really expecting any caller, even though I was hoping for one. There was no real reason to raise, because an opponent with a set would not be getting pot odds to call me anyway, and the better could have a set in which case a pair on the turn would beat me anyway.

I was very surprised when I got raised from behind, but to me this made it 100% obvious that the raiser held 2nd nut flush. He could not hold nut flush, both because that is what I held, and also because if he held that he would have raised more so that I would not have pot odds to call his raise with a set. But he was afraid to raise more than he did, because he was afraid that someone behind him (or I) had nut flush. And if he had a set, he would just call rather than risk reopening the betting and getting reraised by nut flush.

Since he had 2nd nut flush, and by flat calling the first time I had played it like I held a set, I concluded that if I flat called the flop raise, he would put me on a set and bet again on the turn if the board did not pair, in order to protect his hand. And this is exactly what he did.

Anyway, there is often more than one reasonable way to play a hand, and reraising on the flop would certainly have been reasonable. But flat calling and then checking the turn was, for the above reason, clearly a much better play.

But as a previous poster said, unusual situations like that come up maybe a couple times per session, but there are many such situations and each one comes up very rarely. For example, I have played hi limit PLO for many years, and I never faced a situation like the one in this hand.

So perhaps the other bit of advice for players wanting to improve is not to play by rote. When you play a session, make it a goal to find at least one usual situation that you play differently than your "gut reaction." This will keep you alert to ways you can improve you game.

[autobet]

It is rare to be raised in this spot. I have found when I have the nut flush and someone else is betting/raising, it is often best to let them stay in the lead.

[benkahuna]

I like your thought process here. Did you have experience with this guy before or do you use that same general reasoning about people with sets and how they behave on a 3 flush board? I generally play lower limits where almost anyone will call a pot sized bet or even lead with it and all in reraise w/ a 3 flush board.

[BluffTHIS!]

My only comment here has to do with you using an unconverted hand history. I believe it is wrong to do so both out of respect for online players who granted are anonymous, but also because it is detrimental to your EV in the long run to allow fishy players see how other players analyze their play. I have made these types of comments often on the high stakes nl forum and many disagree because they say identifying a specific player is what allows other posters who play in that game to accurately know the situation at hand. I maintain however, that a good player should be able to accurately describe the play of any player with whom he regularly plays without actually identifying his online screen name. Thus I view this as no different from the detrimental practice of "table coaching" during play.

[joelmick]

Thanks for your comment. I really appreciate it, and I agree with you.

It certainly was never my intention to disrespect my opponent. I probably make several plays per session that are much worse than the play he made that hand.

In any event, in the future I will remove player names.

[KSOT]

I'm having trouble seeing how smooth calling the nuts of the moment is an 'advanced play.'