Stuff I do that I don't like

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
But on the turn I'm not folding anyone drawing. And unless the people in the pot are aggressive an 8 or 9 probably isn't betting. So I can't take the flop check-through as 'nobody hit'. It means 'nobody aggressive hit'.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true, but there's a reasonable chance you DO have the best hand. If so, checking is a mistake because you are giving players who may have a lot of outs against it a free chance to outdraw you.

[ QUOTE ]
The turn is 1BB to win 1.5BB, so I have to be good 33% of the time. Because the board is higher than middle range (789), the chances of someone having one of those cards is higher than if it had been something like 456. And the chances that it made 4 to a straight for a normal limping hand (like AT, KT) increases, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they have hands like that it's even more important to bet.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe that's where my thinking diverges from everyone else in the thread. My idea of the bet wasn't 'hey, I think my hand is best' it was made with the intent of taking the pot right there. And the chances of that are slim, due to the nature of the board. So it was ill-advised for that reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be the reason to bet with 24o, but you don't mind callers as much.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems at 1/2, and even much more so lately, when I make a stab at things like this I get creamed by a big pair, or the flopped straight that didn't bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem, not the way you played this hand.

With only 1 limper I dump weak suited gappers in the SB.

I also think the pot is too small to try taking it away on the turn. All you've lost so far is 1 SB, I don't see any reason to battle this pot away from anyone. Especially when you're against loose players. For all you know, someone else has a 7 with a better kicker, or an 8, or maybe a 9. With the pot at only 1.5BB, I'm fine with checking this through unless I improve.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
There's something in psychology called the "availability heuristic." What it means is that people tend to over-estimate the occurance of memorable events while downplaying the occurance of routine, non-memorable events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm familiar with that affect. It's the main cause of comments like 'Party is rigged', etc. I know that the brain likes to play tricks on you, and I do take steps to try to counteract them before I rush to generalizations. I'm a pretty critical-thinking kind of guy.

I haven't gone back to prove myself with numbers, but I know that it doesn't happen just once or twice a night (and not always to me, I see others trapped by it, too). I always comment those players, but it always seems to be someone new doing it, although I have caught one guy with a previous note. It happened to me on two separate tables at the exact same time last night. Yeah, I know, that argues for your phenomena, since that makes it all the more memorable.

The style of play seems to be that they don't like to open-raise it, or 3-bet hands like AA, KK, AK, sometimes QQ.
They will raise it out of the blinds if they have enough limpers, or out of late position.

I've seen it frequent enough that I think there is a book or web-site somewhere advising it... or maybe they just watch TV poker too much.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you pick this up uncontested far, far more often than you run into a trickily played overpair, a slowplayed straight, or a misplayed top pair. It's just that you remember the later cases and forget about the former.

Seriously, you can make a good case for betting this turn with literally any two cards. I've seen that advice show up in multiple books (I'm thinking Yao and Freeny, but there may have been others as well. Harmon's chapter in SS2 is another possibility, but I would need to review that one). If it would be reasonable to bet this turn WITH NOTHING AT ALL, then it has to be right to bet the turn with a legitimate hand that figures to be good at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least I wasn't completely out in left field, except pre-flop, perhaps... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

KO

[ QUOTE ]

But with 1 limper + blinds I'm only getting 5-1 on my complete. That means I would have to make up 3BB without getting out-drawn.
KO

[/ QUOTE ]

This comment made me think about the implied odds thread in the latest digest (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...amp;PHPSESSID=). Read Nick Royales posts.

Basically, what he wrote was that there is a difference between calling 5-1 and 10-2 when you calculate implied odds.

In this particular case it would translate into that there is a difference between calling PF 2.5-0.5, which is what we really do here, and calling 5-1, which is what KingOtter used in his calculations.

If KO is right here and we need 11-1, we would not really need to be able to get another 3 BB, but just 3 SB. Since we want to get 11-1, and we pay only 0.5, we really need 5.5-0.5, and since we are currently getting 2.5-0.5, we only need 3 SB more.

In the example of 2 limpers, where we get 7-1, or more correctly, 3.5-0.5, it would then mean that we need no more than 2 SB.

Royale opened my eyes for this just this day, so my reasoning could be completely wrong, but I don't think so.

(didn't read all posts, just scanned them, so sorry if Im repeating someone else)

[SCfuji]

otter

you should not worry about this being a leak because i doubt you run into this leak very often. since i dont think it is a terrible leak i dont think this hand was played terribly. so stop worrying about this leak and go back to building some dams that dont have terrible leaks in them with your otter clan.

(i check/fold the turn)

[MN_Mime]

Thanks for posting this. I was just preparing a similar holding for the board and feeling kind of stupid about it. It turns out that it's probably not as bad as I feared.

Comments welcome on all streets.

---

The players:

UTG 50 VPIP, 0 PFR, Agg 5 (< 50 hands)
UTG+1 44 VPIP, 0 PFR, Agg 0 (< 50 hands)
MP2 58 VPIP, 0 PFR, Agg .22 (< 50 hands)
MP3 62 VPIP, 1.2 PFR, Agg .07 (>100 hands)
CO 65 VPIP, 0 PFR, Agg .74 (>100 hands)
But 55 VPIP, 0 PFR, Agg .68 (50-100 hands)
BB no read (tight or no cards?), 10 hands with VPIP of 0

Great table (can any decision be wrong here?), family pot

HERO is in the SB with 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (9-handed)

PRE-FLOP
UTG SLAG calls, UTG+1 SLP calls, 1 fold, MP2 SLP calls, MP3 SLP calls, CO SLP calls, Button SLP calls, HERO calls, BB checks.
[8 sb]

Easy complete.


FLOP 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (8 players)
HERO checks, BB checks, UTG SLAG bets, UTG+1 SLAG calls, MP2 SLP raises, MP3 SLP folds, CO SLP folds, Button SLP folds, HERO calls, BB folds, UTG SLAG bets, UTG+1 SLAG calls, MP2 SLP calls, HERO calls.
[20 sb]

My thinking here was weak, I think. I had a piece and was very confident my 5 outs were good plus I had BDFD and BDSD. The pot seemed too big to let go being against Q + any broadway. Anybody bet this instead of checking? How about folding when it's two back to you? Calling the 3-bet closing the action seemed the easiest decision here.


TURN 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (4 players)
HERO checks, UTG SLAG bets, UTG+1 SLAG calls, MP2 SLP calls, HERO calls.
[14 BB]

I think the call is standard. The 5 didn't help anyone and my BDSD improved. Anyone differ here?

RIVER 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (4 players)
HERO checks, UTG SLAG checks, UTG+1 SLAG checks, MP2 SLP checks.
[Final Pot: 14 BB]

Whiffed on a check-raise. At the time, I felt the table was more aggressive than it looks in the light of day.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
otter

you should not worry about this being a leak because i doubt you run into this leak very often. since i dont think it is a terrible leak i dont think this hand was played terribly. so stop worrying about this leak and go back to building some dams that dont have terrible leaks in them with your otter clan.

(i check/fold the turn)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I was careful to say it wasn't a leak. Just a behavior I wanted to change... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

And actually I think this situation does come up frequently enough for me.

Basically what I'm seeing in my game right now is I win a big pot or two, and then my chips whittle down, down, down..... if I can save a SB or three every 100 hands, well, that translates directly into winrate, doesn't it? In this hand I should have saved half an SB pre-flop.

KO

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems at 1/2, and even much more so lately, when I make a stab at things like this I get creamed by a big pair, or the flopped straight that didn't bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem, not the way you played this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is me being a scared little girl?

I can buy into that.

KO

[KingOtter]

You are correct sir... I mixed up all my translations back and forth between SB's, half SB's and BB's.

KO