Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A few random thoughts:
Your rough success rate in April is about $60 per hour. That strikes me as insanely good (coming from a guy whose long term rate is in the $10 to $20 per hour range). Why change what appears to be working so well?
Fish are good for the game. Yes, frustrating when they are catching cards. But I think there is a strong long term argument for seeking these players out, not trying to avoid them. I want people calling my raises with garbage from out of position.
If hand reading were your strongest skill, I could see a better argument for playing against non-ATC players. ATC players require a different approach and that approach does not include much hand reading. It does generally include lots of value betting and raising, especially in position.
It sounds like your bankroll can afford it, so I see now harm in experimenting in moving up. But do consider it an experiment and know what you are looking for. Are you hoping for a higher hourly rate ultimately? How will you judge this experiment to know if it is a success or failure? Will it be a success to you if you have a lower hourly rate with less variance and frustration? What if you find the win rate 10% better but with much bigger swings because the stakes are so much higher?
Also agree with Hans here. And will add two points.
On Hand #1, what would you have done with a hand like AQ, that misses the flop entirely? I hope you wouldn’t bet/bluff $45 into a $50 pot. $25 or $30 will generally get most worse hands to fold, so why continuation bet for more? So, I like all my flop bets to be about half pot so no one can read me as strong or weak based on bet sizes. In this case, with shorter stacks, betting half pot still easily gets your opponents stack in the middle on the turn or river if he has a hand he is committed to. So, a smaller bet shows more patience, might get mediocre hands like middle pair to call, and better fits with meta game considerations (not having bet size tells).
On hand #2, I like how you played it. Leaving aside what the villain actually had, any Spade, ten, or Jack on the turn might kill your action. So I like playing fast here to get as much money in as soon as possible. I like your bet sizing here.
I don’t love it, but I am shoving here. Villian is representing a flush, but: (1) Villain does some crazy stud; (2) Villian could have a smaller flush (although the fact that he was the preflop raiser is certainly concerning in that regard; (3) Villain’s check on the flop is odd and not entirely consistent with a monster draw hand (could be a slow played set, for example). I think you are not deep enough to get away here those times you are beat.
On a side note, I think there is merit to smooth calling the turn (knowing you are committed to getting all in on the river no matter how bad the river card appears due to pot commitment). Calling the turn might keep sets and smaller flushes thinking they are ahead (so they pay in full on the river). You are never getting a set to fold, so shoving the turn doesn’t really protect your hand. The only hand that might fold to a shove is a hand with the Ace of Spades by itself with little or nothing to go with it. But a crazy player probably can’t fold the nut draw in a pot this big regardless of the odds (which are going to be close or good enough to call regardless).
I would lean towards folding K7 suited for $15 (had it not been three bet). You are out of position. Flopping a King (your best realistic flop) could cost you a lot of money. As actually played, you are investing almost 10% of your stack on a highly speculative hand out of position. I don’t think the decision here is close. FOLD.
As played, you flopped about as good as you could hope. I would probably play this flop aggressively, either betting out or check raising. As played, however, you now see two people willing to put $145 into this pot. Why would they do that? Overpairs, sets, and an Ace high flush draw are all possible. And these people may feel pot committed after putting in $145 on the flop. So your fold equity is poor. You could be drawing slim. That you rule out a higher flush draw is a bit optimistic (while, indeed, not overly likely). I guess I would be torn here between a shove and a fold (calling leaves you in a horrible spot the roughly 84% of the time you miss hitting a Spade on the turn). Since I don’t like the idea of drawing to a non nut hand for almost $500, I regretfully fold here.
“Experienced player” is not a particularly helpful description. I guess you also hit a pet peeve of mine. In most card rooms, the term “local” or “regular” is meant to describe a player who is experienced, plays a lot, is good, and generally should be avoided. That definition or implied meaning has always bothered me a lot (full disclosure, I would not be considered a regular or local in any card room). Experienced players, locals, and regulars come in all sorts of “flavors”. There are experienced calling stations. There are plenty of regular nits. There are locals who play the role of table bully. Most locals play by a culture that is exploitable one you understand it (in Florida, for example, I played in a card room where AK was conservatievly limped pre flop and then played in a try trapping fashion when hit; feeling it was hidden strength, no one wanted to fold the hand at any point so you could get good value from it if you could beat top pair).
I digress. I might take a line similar to the Villain if I held A10, AK, or AQ of Diamonds. I would not bet $100 on the river, though, with a paired board and the nut flush. But I would bet with the nut flush and no sign of strength from my opponent (betting maybe 50% to 75% of the $100 pot). I think the correct play here is very villain dependent. I lean slightly towards a fold (not knowing the villian), but if I think my opponent is either bluffy, tilting, overly aggressive, or just not that smart, I would call. As others have said, you beat hands like K-X or AA. Betting $100 here with trips is especially fool hearty (if betting for value) because so many potential holdings that call have you beat. AK can hope to be called by KQ, but not sure you beat any other hands that call. I could see trips here betting small and hoping for crying calls from weaker two pair type hands. So, the big bet is polarity. Either this is a monster or a bluff. So, I have to assess the chances this particular villian might bluff.
I am fine with the pre-flop raise here, although we are at the very bottom of our raising range with A2 suited. In terms of bet size, I am fine with $15 if this is a $1/$3 game. If this is a $1/$2 game, this bet sizing is too high.
I would actually generally bet this flop, both because it is very unlikely to have hit my opponents hands and because it keeps strong hands like big pocket pairs clearly in my range. A check will be straight forwardly read as weak.
If you bet and get called, you have five outs to improve. When you spike a duece, they will never see it coming (although it is not the nuts and you can’t necessarily go completely hog wild with trip deuces). If you spike an ace against a hand like AJ, again you suddenly stand to make good $ and will be glad you started pot building early.
I don’t think we have enough info to answer this question (stack sizes matter here). I generally favor raising here. Let’s assume that Hero and the two remaining Villains all have $200 stacks to start this hand. If you flat, you are giving villians great odds to call. If they have small pocket pairs, suited connectors, and suited one gapers, their calls would be very likely correct. You don’t want these hands in because you are out of position and won’t see these hands hit those times that they do hit. And unless you opponents are so bad that they will stack off with something like middle pair, your opponents with these holdings don’t represent a ton of potential profit. You want to be up against Broadway hands that flop top pair. Not knowing what your opponents have, I raise here as a default play. If my opponents are short stacked (maybe anything under $100) and loose and/or aggressive (ideally both), I like flatting more.
John S makes some good points here.
I guess my reaction is this: I don’t love you play on the flop. You check and both opponents show interest in the pot. You only have mediocre pot equity. You have terrible position. You could be drawing thin if one of your opponents has a 4 (and we have a straddle who chooses not to raise and a player who is playing any two cards… so each opponents range includes hands with 4’s). You could be drawing thin if an opponent slow played any pair 9’s or higher. I am a fairly conservative player to be clear, but I am working on my bluff game…. and I would generally like better equity and a better position. Draws to a pair of sevens or a pair of eights seem a bit weak (sure, they add some value but not enough to fade some of the negatives here in my opinion).
All that stated, I do admire the @#$& (crass word for courage) it took to fire the last two bets. Had your opponent not gotten incredibly lucky on the river, you would have won a very nice pot. That he tanked twice tells me you put him to the test and almost pulled off a great bluff. As noted previously, it was also a dangerous spot to choose this move.
I think there is a solid argument for a check on the river, as there aren’t a lot of hands that you beat that will pay you off. If you get called here, you are usuallly beat.
Thanks for sharing this hand.
My gut here is to flat too, but I can see appeal of raising to gain fold equity. Given that we have position, we get to see how our opponent reacts to our calling (if we flat). If he bets the turn despite our call, I am generally calling given all of our outs (considering his bet size and our implied odds to be sure the math seems right). His betting twice is more likely a sign of strength so I proceed more cautiously. If he checks the turn, I am almost always betting something like two-thirds of pot unless my opponent is very aggressive and likes to trap. But even then I likely still bet because we still have solid equity. Betting the turn this way makes it somewhat harder to read your hand as a draw (simple players bet draws on the flop when they have more equity and slow down if they miss the turn). Notice I am suggesting betting the turn regardless of what the turn is.
The Villian’s stack size after calling $55 is a relevant factor here. He sounded generally short stacked, given he kept rebuying for $100. If he had $50 or less left after calling your $55 bet, my standard flop move would be to put my opponent all in. He may feel pot committed and I am also fine to just win the pot without a contest. Which leads me to my next point…
A single pair hand is never so powerful that slow playing is clearly the correct play. Yes, sometimes it is the correct play, but it is always playing with fire too. Betting here, and preventing a suckout, is not a massive leak (and indeed I would advise betting the flop in part because it is so obvious that you have an overpair here that you make it easier for opponents to play perfectly against you).
A few comments.
#1 – I agree with John S. about your poor bet sizing on your pre-flop 3-bet.
#2 – I am okay with the idea of three betting pre-flop, but I hope there was a logic to it (for example, the villain in the hand was very active in late position). At this point, you are clearly bluffing with a marginal hand, so it would be nice to have a plan that is based on that (with this mindset it should be clear you are bet sizing to get a fold).
#3 – I feel like the Villan’s min raise on the flop generally means one of two things. It means he has a monster and is trying to get more money in the pot without scaring you away. Or he has a medium strength hand or more likely a draw and is trying to buy a free turn for cheaper than it will cost him if he calls the flop and lets you set the turn price. I played a hand earlier this year where a conservative older player min raised me when I flopped a four card Royal. Out of position, I raised $75 more (about $25 shy of pitting him all in). He folded AK at this point (flopped a pair of Kings, Ace kicker). This player was clearly min raising here to “find out where he was at”.
#4 – sorry, this is long winded. Based on my experience above, I think you can have some fold equity, especially against some opponents, by shoving. Add in you 12 outs to straights and flushes (roughly 48% equity without counting something like drawing to a pair of kings) and I like the shove here. Shoving also gets you paid in full when you hit (instead of letting your opponent Fold if a third Heart arrives and he loses his nerve).
#5 – A final oddity of the hand I don’t understand. Did the Villiam here really go from a $3 bet to make it $25. That is a huge over-raise. Were there a lot of limpers? Any read on why the over-bet? The read here plays into whether I like the $50 three bet pre-flop.
More of a broad comment that is associated with Hands #2 and #3. You appear to have a strategic approach to playing in a loose game by being loose yourself. Don’t be lured into playing bingo just because that is what everyone else is doing. Find hands that play well multi-way, play position, and over-raise and over-bet for value when you think you are ahead. Only winner in bingo game is the house. You ban only beat this kind of table long run by not playing bingo.
Suited Aces are horribly over-rated in my opinion. As such, I don’t like raising with this hand from early position.
You didn’t give us your stack size, but if you had a stack of $200 here you would be putting in 20% of your stack pre-flop, out-of-position with a marginal hand (if calling the actual 3-bet). That is a terrible position to be in. If three of you had seen a flop here at $40 each, you would have a $120 pot. Now what do you do if an Ace flops buy you don’t have a flush draw or two pair to go with it? You might be pot committed to paying off a better Ace. Again, you would be in a horrible spot. This is a super easy fold to the 3-bet, in my opinion.
I’d have limped pre-flop with A-7 suited in early position. When it gets raised I then decide whether to proceed or not (based on the raiser and likely number or callers). But by keeping the pot smaller I have room or maneuver if I play on (instead of facing pot commitment on the flop if the pot gets bloated). Many advocate never limping, but I like it here and see use in limping in some cases. I would simply fold here at an aggressive table with talented players. Generally, I’d rather fold this hand than raise with it, though, because it’s not strong enough that I want to play a raised pot out of position with it.
