Marginal hand #2 Play or no play

[emitch]

I am up to the challenge and posting without reading the other responses so let me know where my logic is flawed (Like there is any doubt that someone wouldn't). This one would be a close call for me but I am a little tight. With position and the likelyhood of at least four other in the pot, the straight or flush will probably pay off well if it hits. You have post flop passive players to your left. Other than "non premium" cards, everything else seems perfect, so I say call.

[KaiShin]

I like all the streets after preflop.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind it being raised because I'll usually get more action post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if your opponents are passive. If you bet or raise a passive opponent, they tend to revert to thier passive nature and just call. You might extract 1 extra bet from them, but not more usually. Also, if they are weak they might even fold at some point, actually costing you bets.

In your OP, you said:

[ QUOTE ]
MP2 is LPP, MP3 is LAP, SB and BB are TAP

[/ QUOTE ]

...indicating that each opponent is passive postflop. But then later you said:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get a lot of good reads on opponents

[/ QUOTE ]

The action that took place in the hand suggests that your opponents are in fact quite aggressive post flop - at least, they definitely aren't passive.

With the extraordinary aggression displayed by your opponents in this hand, I would change my original recommendation from "Fold, but its close," to "Call for implied odds." You did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. You made 2 critical mistakes in this hand: 1) You did not have an accurate read on your opponents, and 2) you did not play correctly according to the read you did have. You were lucky in that your mistakes were self-neutralizing, causing you to play the hand correctly.

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind it being raised because I'll usually get more action post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if your opponents are passive. If you bet or raise a passive opponent, they tend to revert to thier passive nature and just call. You might extract 1 extra bet from them, but not more usually. Also, if they are weak they might even fold at some point, actually costing you bets.

In your OP, you said:

[ QUOTE ]
MP2 is LPP, MP3 is LAP, SB and BB are TAP

[/ QUOTE ]

...indicating that each opponent is passive postflop. But then later you said:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get a lot of good reads on opponents

[/ QUOTE ]

The action that took place in the hand suggests that your opponents are in fact quite aggressive post flop - at least, they definitely aren't passive.

With the extraordinary aggression displayed by your opponents in this hand, I would change my original recommendation from "Fold, but its close," to "Call for implied odds." You did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. You made 2 critical mistakes in this hand: 1) You did not have an accurate read on your opponents, and 2) you did not play correctly according to the read you did have. You were lucky in that your mistakes were self-neutralizing, causing you to play the hand correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'll be better off to leave the PT player stats out of these posts since the overwhelming majority of them will be less than 50 hands seen. My mistake on that.

MP2 was the only aggressive player after the flop (went nuts) but out of the 40 hands with him it looks like that was the only hand he raised ANYWHERE.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on one point. Just because a player is NORMALLY passive after the flop doesn't mean he is ALWAYS passive after the flop. If he raises at all preflop then those are the hands where he will tend to be aggressive post flop (because he has a good hand). This is what I'm talking about when I expect more action post flop when it's raised preflop--no matter the read on the opponent.

[droolie]

grjr- Showing marginal hands being played when there are solid draws to the nuts is fine but the hands you should be putting in are the ones that you you miss the flop or flop middle or bottom pair with no backdoors. These are the hands that get us in trouble with the margial limpers. The high card strength just isn't there to bail us out when our draws don't flop. I think we all can agree that you can't really go wrong chasing a monster if the odds are even close due to implied odds but what do you do when you're drawing to 2 pair or trips? These decisions are more frequent and in many cases tougher.

[jrz1972]

Moreover, we're seeing hands in which Hero nails his hand and then Villian proceeds to morph into uber-LAG and spew off a bunch of chips to Hero.

Obviously things worked out great in this hand. That doesn't change the fact that the preflop call is still "wrong" statistically.

I'm sure I could go back and find some hands where I limed with 44, the flop came down AK8, and I folded for one bet in a 3.5 SB pot, only to see a 4 roll off on the turn. That doesn't make my fold wrong. The same issue is cropping up in these hands.

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
grjr- Showing marginal hands being played when there are solid draws to the nuts is fine but the hands you should be putting in are the ones that you you miss the flop or flop middle or bottom pair with no backdoors. These are the hands that get us in trouble with the margial limpers. The high card strength just isn't there to bail us out when our draws don't flop. I think we all can agree that you can't really go wrong chasing a monster if the odds are even close due to implied odds but what do you do when you're drawing to 2 pair or trips? These decisions are more frequent and in many cases tougher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken Droolie. This was only hand #2 though so can you blame me for starting out with a couple of winners? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I've got lots of marginal hands (surprise) so I'll be sure to mix it up some. I want to get to some more BDFD hands also since everybody seems to like those. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Oh, and the original idea of posting these was to show hands where more than half of the posters agreed on the flop call. This could help the "too tight" people realize where they are leaving some money on the table.

Frankly I'm surprised that 90% of the people who responded wouldn't call in this hand. It didn't seem like that bad of a decision to me.

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, we're seeing hands in which Hero nails his hand and then Villian proceeds to morph into uber-LAG and spew off a bunch of chips to Hero.

Obviously things worked out great in this hand. That doesn't change the fact that the preflop call is still "wrong" statistically.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think "wrong" is too strong a word to use here. Questionable is about as far as I'll go. The #1 hand though I believe the concensus was that it was a good call.

[jrz1972]

Yeah, I forgot we got off on a tangent about whether we would call if it were two bets to us instead of just one. My fault.