United Poker Forum  

Server Time: 10/11/2008 12:46:14 PM PACIFIC  
Playing Overcards, 3Kings, 20. Mar 2003 08:09
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I'm playing 3-6 HE online. The game is a little tighter and more passive than typlical. (Usually 3-4 see the flop without a raise.)

MP limps in. Cutoff raises. The player is above average for the table and I figure he probably has a good hand as opposed to trying to buy the button and get the blinds out. I'm sitting on the button with AQo. I decide to call as the blinds tended to fold when hit with a raise. SB folds. BB calls as does the limper. Another reason I only called was I wanted to see what flopped and then take control if I liked it.

The flop comes 2 5 7 rainbow. It is checked to the cutoff who bets. I raise. The reasons behind my raise: 1) drive out the other two players, 2) get a free card if I don't hit, 3) maybe get the original bettor to fold and when the pot right there(although I didn't think that was likely) BB folds but the limper calls as does the original bettor. The turn is 5. It is checked to me. My first thought was take the free card. My second thought was that the 5 didn't help anyone so I bet with the idea to check the river if I didn't improve. Both players call. My read on both of them was a pair: the limper with a possible 78s or maybe 88 and the cutoff with something like 99 or TT. The river was an A. The limper folds, cutoff checks, I bet. Cutoff calls and I win. Cutoff mucks his cards without showing and then says, "Another idiotic play beats me on the river".

Does anyone else think it was an idiotic play?
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, shorn, 20. Mar 2003 08:17
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 20. Mar 2003 08:09 3Kings wrote:
> I'm playing 3-6 HE online. The game is a little tighter and more passive than
> typlical. (Usually 3-4 see the flop without a raise.)
>
> MP limps in. Cutoff raises. The player is above average for the table and I
> figure he probably has a good hand as opposed to trying to buy the button and
> get the blinds out. I'm sitting on the button with AQo. I decide to call as
> the blinds tended to fold when hit with a raise. SB folds. BB calls as does
> the limper. Another reason I only called was I wanted to see what flopped and
> then take control if I liked it.
>
> The flop comes 2 5 7 rainbow. It is checked to the cutoff who bets. I raise.
> The reasons behind my raise: 1) drive out the other two players, 2) get a free
> card if I don't hit, 3) maybe get the original bettor to fold and when the pot
> right there(although I didn't think that was likely) BB folds but the limper
> calls as does the original bettor. The turn is 5. It is checked to me. My
> first thought was take the free card. My second thought was that the 5 didn't
> help anyone so I bet with the idea to check the river if I didn't improve. Both
> players call. My read on both of them was a pair: the limper with a possible
> 78s or maybe 88 and the cutoff with something like 99 or TT. The river was an
> A. The limper folds, cutoff checks, I bet. Cutoff calls and I win. Cutoff
> mucks his cards without showing and then says, "Another idiotic play beats me on
> the river".
>
> Does anyone else think it was an idiotic play?

Nope. The only thing that I would have done differently was to re-raise pre-flop to take control right there. I think your play from the flop on was fine. The guy was just whining because you sucked out on him. Be happy about that and you hopefully can abuse him while he is on tilt. :)
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, stdioh, 20. Mar 2003 08:40
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 20. Mar 2003 08:09 3Kings wrote:
> I'm playing 3-6 HE online. The game is a little tighter and more passive than
> typlical. (Usually 3-4 see the flop without a raise.)
>
> MP limps in. Cutoff raises. The player is above average for the table and I
> figure he probably has a good hand as opposed to trying to buy the button and
> get the blinds out. I'm sitting on the button with AQo. I decide to call as
> the blinds tended to fold when hit with a raise. SB folds. BB calls as does
> the limper. Another reason I only called was I wanted to see what flopped and
> then take control if I liked it.
>
> The flop comes 2 5 7 rainbow. It is checked to the cutoff who bets. I raise.
> The reasons behind my raise: 1) drive out the other two players, 2) get a free
> card if I don't hit, 3) maybe get the original bettor to fold and when the pot
> right there(although I didn't think that was likely) BB folds but the limper
> calls as does the original bettor. The turn is 5. It is checked to me. My
> first thought was take the free card. My second thought was that the 5 didn't
> help anyone so I bet with the idea to check the river if I didn't improve. Both
> players call. My read on both of them was a pair: the limper with a possible
> 78s or maybe 88 and the cutoff with something like 99 or TT. The river was an
> A. The limper folds, cutoff checks, I bet. Cutoff calls and I win. Cutoff
> mucks his cards without showing and then says, "Another idiotic play beats me on
> the river".
>
> Does anyone else think it was an idiotic play?

I think you played the hand right though there could be stylistic differences. I don't think I would have raised the flop myself...I'd call with my overcards, hoping to spike one of them and hoping that the other two players call and pay you off if you do. I'm not saying that your play was wrong, and considering the tightness of the table, I think I would be more likely to raise there as you did - though if I were at a table that tight I would probably leave.

As for your bet on the turn, that is essential and well done. You know that the 5 didn't help him unless he just made quads with it, but it means that if you hit a card you've got the best 2-pair hand almost certainly. I think it is good to play agressively like this heads up and I don't think you missed anything there.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, Risky Business, 20. Mar 2003 10:35
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Though he didn't continue to raise you, he must have had better than 99 for him to whine about it like that. Sounds like HE should've played stronger to make you run, especially once the others had folded....if he had a pair. Probably had Jacks or Queens, which would explain his preflop raise a little more than 99.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, Laredo, 20. Mar 2003 10:47
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
3K's, the only idiot at that table was the one that made the idiot comment...
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, stdioh, 20. Mar 2003 11:00
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 20. Mar 2003 10:47 Laredo wrote:
> 3K's, the only idiot at that table was the one that made the idiot comment...

Indeed...few things attract me to a table more than whiney players bemoaning the river...the players to fear have seen it all and couldn't care less when they get beat in any but the most extraordinary of beats.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, chasepoker, 20. Mar 2003 11:12
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List

> mucks his cards without showing and then says, "Another idiotic play beats me on
> the river".

To which you reply in your most humble voice " i am sorry i am just a bad player, do you know of any good books i can buy ? ". I say this about 3 times a day as i scoop in another big one.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, stdioh, 21. Mar 2003 10:26
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 20. Mar 2003 11:12 chasepoker wrote:
>
> > mucks his cards without showing and then says, "Another idiotic play beats me on
>
> > the river".
>
> To which you reply in your most humble voice " i am sorry i am just a bad player, do
> you know of any good books i can buy ? ". I say this about 3 times a day as i scoop
> in another big one.

My favourite tilt-your-opponent phrase, which I reserve for grumpy bastards who call names is, "I'm sorry that I'm so bad you can't beat me."
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, Paul Stine, 20. Mar 2003 12:43
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I can see that my opinion differs dramatically than most of those voiced here.

I had prepared a long, blow by blow of what I percieved to be the error is play, but I will save it for now.

In short, I think you got hooked when you saw two face cards and couldn't lay it down to two (2) player you put on hands that where better than yours. (What good are your reads if you ignore what they say?) This is because you were hoping to get lucky. Your draw (basically to one pair) had marginal odds at best even overlooking the chance that you could have caught one of your cards and still had the second (or third) best hand at the end.

Worse than the play, in my opinion, is your attempt to justify it. I think if you had stated that, "By Zeus! I have two big cards and I'm gonna play then to the end regardless of my reads, hell, high water or my chances of winning because I haven't seen as much as a pair of deuces in two hours and I deserve to win." you would have a least have been honest with yourself.

That being said, I won't go as far as saying it was idiotic, merely a good starter played in a conventially bad way (that is seen all the time) and that resulted in a favorable (for you) outcome.

This doesn't mean that I haven't done the same thing on occasions too numerous to count, but I'm working on getting better.

Paul Stine
College Station, TX
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, timmer, 20. Mar 2003 17:20
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List

on 20. Mar 2003 12:43 Paul Stine wrote:
> That being said, I won't go as far as saying it was idiotic,

I would , you have a hand that loves a short handed pot and when given a golden opportunity to get it that way you instead flat call 2 bets. then you go on to play the flop where a measly pair of crabs has you beat. then if that aint bad enough you bet into a turn paired board with a questionabe (here) A. you are sooo lucky you werent already drawing dead in a couple of places. congradulations on your 3 out hoover. a well deserved win . Spend it all quick because your play will undoubtably will cost you some real money in the future

> This doesn't mean that I haven't done the same thing on occasions too numerous to count,

Bull Shit PABLO If you thought about making a play like that your head would go off like a cantalope with a Claymore in it.

-timmer
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, 3Kings, 21. Mar 2003 08:18
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 20. Mar 2003 17:20 timmer wrote:
>
> on 20. Mar 2003 12:43 Paul Stine wrote:
> > That being said, I won't go as far as saying it was idiotic,
>
> I would , you have a hand that loves a short handed pot and when given a golden
> opportunity to get it that way you instead flat call 2 bets. then you go on to play the
> flop where a measly pair of crabs has you beat. then if that aint bad enough you bet into
> a turn paired board with a questionabe (here) A. you are sooo lucky you werent already
> drawing dead in a couple of places. congradulations on your 3 out hoover. a well deserved
> win . Spend it all quick because your play will undoubtably will cost you some real money
> in the future

Actually, I will add it my 1.4 BB per hour that I have been winning over the last 18 months.

>
> > This doesn't mean that I haven't done the same thing on occasions too numerous to
> count,
>
> Bull Shit PABLO If you thought about making a play like that your head would go off like
> a cantalope with a Claymore in it.
>
> -timmer
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, stdioh, 21. Mar 2003 10:29
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
> Actually, I will add it my 1.4 BB per hour that I have been winning over the last 18 months.

In all fairness, how many hours have you played in those 18 months?
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, 3Kings, 21. Mar 2003 11:54
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 21. Mar 2003 10:29 stdioh wrote:
> > Actually, I will add it my 1.4 BB per hour that I have been winning over the last 18 months.
>
> In all fairness, how many hours have you played in those 18 months?

I average 4-5 hours a week...I know it is not a lot (of time), but it is better than losing.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, timmer, 21. Mar 2003 15:24
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
the next questions are as follows:


1. How hand hand are played per hour on average.
AND
2. where are you playing and how fast can I fund an account there ?

timmer
on 21. Mar 2003 11:54 3Kings wrote:
> on 21. Mar 2003 10:29 stdioh wrote:
> > > Actually, I will add it my 1.4 BB per hour that I have been winning over the last 18 months.
> >
> > In all fairness, how many hours have you played in those 18 months?
>
> I average 4-5 hours a week...I know it is not a lot (of time), but it is better than losing.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, 3Kings, 22. Mar 2003 22:02
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I play at PP. Probably at least 40 hands an hour. 3-6 and 5-10 are ver good games...at least for me.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, timmer, 23. Mar 2003 06:25
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 22. Mar 2003 22:02 3Kings wrote:
> I play at PP. Probably at least 40 hands an hour. 3-6 and 5-10 are ver good games...at least for me.

well your playing about twice as many hands per hour as you would in a average spped B&M card room. So.......
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, stdioh, 24. Mar 2003 11:32
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 21. Mar 2003 11:54 3Kings wrote:
> on 21. Mar 2003 10:29 stdioh wrote:
> > > Actually, I will add it my 1.4 BB per hour that I have been winning over the last 18 months.
> >
> > In all fairness, how many hours have you played in those 18 months?
>
> I average 4-5 hours a week...I know it is not a lot (of time), but it is better than losing.

Just a word of caution - 100 hours is a drop in the bucket when it comes to poker. After 1000 hours you might know better where you stand. I hope that you stay above the 1.8 BB/hour curve, but don't be shocked if it stabilizes down from there a bit.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, 3Kings, 24. Mar 2003 12:43
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
My goal right now isn't to win. What I want to do right now is learn how to play. At 3-6, 1 BB per hour isn't anything. Even 5-10 isn't much. By 2004, I want to start playing 10-20 and win; but, I am not ready now. That is why I am asking these questions. I'll play how I know, make a small profit, pick up some tips on the way and next year, we will see what happens
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, stdioh, 24. Mar 2003 13:57
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 24. Mar 2003 12:43 3Kings wrote:
> My goal right now isn't to win. What I want to do right now is learn how to play. At 3-6, 1 BB per hour isn't
> anything. Even 5-10 isn't much. By 2004, I want to start playing 10-20 and win; but, I am not ready now. That
> is why I am asking these questions. I'll play how I know, make a small profit, pick up some tips on the way and
> next year, we will see what happens

I think that's the best attitude anybody can have. Nobody ever said, "I lost my house, my car, and my family because I didn't move up in limit." IMHO, the time to move up is when you are enraged because there are more fish at a higher limit than you are playing and you have been beating the bejesus out of your game for too damn long...and of course you have the bankroll for it.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, 3Kings, 21. Mar 2003 08:09
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 20. Mar 2003 12:43 Paul Stine wrote:
> I can see that my opinion differs dramatically than most of those voiced here.
>
> I had prepared a long, blow by blow of what I percieved to be the error is play, but
> I will save it for now.
>
> In short, I think you got hooked when you saw two face cards and couldn't lay it
> down to two (2) player you put on hands that where better than yours. (What good are
> your reads if you ignore what they say?) This is because you were hoping to get
> lucky. Your draw (basically to one pair) had marginal odds at best even overlooking
> the chance that you could have caught one of your cards and still had the second (or
> third) best hand at the end.

As I have learned, reading a hand and sticking to that read will cost you lots of pots that you could have won and save you from losing money that you would have lost.


>
> Worse than the play, in my opinion, is your attempt to justify it. I think if you
> had stated that, "By Zeus! I have two big cards and I'm gonna play then to the end
> regardless of my reads, hell, high water or my chances of winning because I haven't
> seen as much as a pair of deuces in two hours and I deserve to win." you would have a
> least have been honest with yourself.
>
> That being said, I won't go as far as saying it was idiotic, merely a good starter
> played in a conventially bad way (that is seen all the time) and that resulted in a
> favorable (for you) outcome.
>
> This doesn't mean that I haven't done the same thing on occasions too numerous to
> count, but I'm working on getting better.
>
> Paul Stine
> College Station, TX
>
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, Paul Stine, 21. Mar 2003 13:12
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 21. Mar 2003 08:09 3Kings wrote:
> on 20. Mar 2003 12:43 Paul Stine wrote:
> > I can see that my opinion differs dramatically than most of those voiced here.
> >
> > I had prepared a long, blow by blow of what I percieved to be the error is play, but
> > I will save it for now.
> >
> > In short, I think you got hooked when you saw two face cards and couldn't lay it
> > down to two (2) player you put on hands that where better than yours. (What good are
> > your reads if you ignore what they say?) This is because you were hoping to get
> > lucky. Your draw (basically to one pair) had marginal odds at best even overlooking
> > the chance that you could have caught one of your cards and still had the second (or
> > third) best hand at the end.
>
> As I have learned, reading a hand and sticking to that read will cost you lots of pots
> that you could have won and save you from losing money that you would have lost.
>
There is something disturbing about this statement. I need to break this down logically.
Splitting it at the AND it becomes
1) reading a hand and sticking to that read will cost you lots of pots that you could have won
AND
2) reading a hand and sticking to that read will save you from losing money that you would have lost.

Inverting 2) as not (save) -> cost; not (lost) -> won, gives:

2i) Not (reading a hand and sticking to that read will cost you winning money that you would have won.)

This still might not be right.

How can it do both?

Are you saying that A:) you need to change your read as more information becomes available, or are you saying that you should rigidly stick with your first read?

It seems to me that by your explaination you did the latter. You never changed your read (that I can tell) and despite that got lucky to draw out against two hands hands you read as being better than yours.

Or are you saying that B:) you are so bad a reading hands that you just do the opposite of what your reads tell you to do?

Or are you saying, as I am beginning to suspect, that C:) you won the hand so it doesn't matter if you played it poorly?

As an aside, a distinguished poker writer (and current Ozark resident) once penned that the idea is to win money, not pots. He went on to say that money not lost is the same as money won.

So won = not(lost), ipso facto: not(won)=lost

Wait! I can fit that into my analysis of what you stated:
Inserting this definition into 2), it becomes:

2a) reading a hand and sticking to that read will save you from not winning money that you would have not won.

Nope, still obfuscated. I guess I need a clarification.

Confusedly,

Paul Stine
College Station, TX
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, 3Kings, 22. Mar 2003 22:33
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 21. Mar 2003 13:12 Paul Stine wrote:
> on 21. Mar 2003 08:09 3Kings wrote:
> > on 20. Mar 2003 12:43 Paul Stine wrote:
> > > I can see that my opinion differs dramatically than most of those voiced here.
> > >
> > > I had prepared a long, blow by blow of what I percieved to be the error is play, but
> > > I will save it for now.
> > >
> > > In short, I think you got hooked when you saw two face cards and couldn't lay it
> > > down to two (2) player you put on hands that where better than yours. (What good are
> > > your reads if you ignore what they say?) This is because you were hoping to get
> > > lucky. Your draw (basically to one pair) had marginal odds at best even overlooking
> > > the chance that you could have caught one of your cards and still had the second (or
> > > third) best hand at the end.

If my reads were correct, I was getting odds to call both the flop and turn..
Of course, it could have been possible I had the best hand anyway. At the end of the hand, the other guys comment made me think otherwise.
> >
> > As I have learned, reading a hand and sticking to that read will cost you lots of pots
> > that you could have won and save you from losing money that you would have lost.
> >
> There is something disturbing about this statement. I need to break this down logically.
> Splitting it at the AND it becomes
> 1) reading a hand and sticking to that read will cost you lots of pots that you could have
> won

meaning you read the other person for a better hand than you and fold

> AND
> 2) reading a hand and sticking to that read will save you from losing money that you would
> have lost.

Meaning you have the second best hand and call or raise on the river.
>
> Inverting 2) as not (save) -> cost; not (lost) -> won, gives:

Actually, what I wrote is right. If you change your read, you will not make the bet or call that you wouldn't win; therefore, you save money you would have lost.
>
> 2i) Not (reading a hand and sticking to that read will cost you winning money that you would
> have won.)
>
> This still might not be right.
>
> How can it do both?

You change your read and make money or save money that is how it can be both (not at the same time of course)
>
> Are you saying that A:) you need to change your read as more information becomes available, or
> are you saying that you should rigidly stick with your first read?

You need to change your read and act accordingly.
>
> It seems to me that by your explaination you did the latter. You never changed your read (that
> I can tell) and despite that got lucky to draw out against two hands hands you read as being
> better than yours.

When I read a hand, I always look at what is the best possible hand I could be against. When someone cold calls two bets on the flop, I usually put them on at least a pair or a monster draw. Since there were no real draws (unless you count 86 (probably not) or 89 (possible), I put him on a pair. Since he didn't raise pre-flop, he could have had 88 or 99 but I thought more likely a 7. The other player, I thought maybe TT or 99, maybe even JJ mainly because he didn't reraise me on the flop. One reason for my bet on the turn was to get the free showdown if I don't hit my 6 outer. Yes I got lucky (7-1) and hit it. .
>
> Or are you saying that B:) you are so bad a reading hands that you just do the opposite of
> what your reads tell you to do?
>
> Or are you saying, as I am beginning to suspect, that C:) you won the hand so it doesn't
> matter if you played it poorly?
>
I was going to win that hand anyway.
1) Even if I don't raise on the flop, I will call (3-1 odds/7-1 pot odds)and then call the turn(7-1 odds/8-1 pot odds + bets I get on the river if I hit). That does assume I have 6 outs which I thought I did. When the A hits the river, I win.
2) I raise the flop as a semi-bluff, check the turn. I will call the river and win.

> As an aside, a distinguished poker writer (and current Ozark resident) once penned that the
> idea is to win money, not pots. He went on to say that money not lost is the same as money
> won.
>
> So won = not(lost), ipso facto: not(won)=lost
>
> Wait! I can fit that into my analysis of what you stated:
> Inserting this definition into 2), it becomes:
>
> 2a) reading a hand and sticking to that read will save you from not winning money that you
> would have not won.

See above.
>
> Nope, still obfuscated. I guess I need a clarification.
>
> Confusedly,
>
> Paul Stine
> College Station, TX
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, Andrew Wells, 20. Mar 2003 13:31
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
You were down to two opponents, so you had some reasonable chance of getting both of them to fold on the turn. If you had checked and missed on the river, you also lose to a bluff bet as well. Good play.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, shorn, 20. Mar 2003 13:44
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 20. Mar 2003 13:31 Andrew Wells wrote:
> You were down to two opponents, so you had some reasonable chance of getting both of
> them to fold on the turn. If you had checked and missed on the river, you also lose
> to a bluff bet as well. Good play.

I agree. The only play I don't like is calling two bets cold pre-flop. If I was going to play, I would have 3-bet to get the blinds and potentially the original limper out.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, Andrew Wells, 20. Mar 2003 13:47
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I probably reraise here too, but I have some appreciation for the deceptiveness of a cold call as well. I suspect in this 3-6 game if the big blind is going to play it won't matter if it is against a raise or reraise. Sometimes I'd rather not be checked to on the flop if I make top pair when it can be more effective if you get bet into and can make the raise. I would really favor the reraise against someone with loose raising standards of course.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, timmer, 20. Mar 2003 16:43
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
FOLD ?? FOLD?!
what make you think these mullet minds would fold . they didnt travel all the way from Pocima to Baker to fold they came to call and to play. Dont you know that folding is a fricking big club you use to beat your opponents senseless. Dont be such a fish.



on 20. Mar 2003 13:31 Andrew Wells wrote:
> You were down to two opponents, so you had some reasonable chance of getting both of
> them to fold on the turn. If you had checked and missed on the river, you also lose
> to a bluff bet as well. Good play.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, Andrew Wells, 20. Mar 2003 20:32
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
They travelled all the way from their bedroom to livingroom to play on-line. I've put in enough play at Paradise and Planet 3-6 to have seen some sensibility at this limit. I'll play higher at a live card room, but won't go beyond 5-10 on-line except very occasionally. I think there are many other middle limit players who have the same reservations. That said, you're right that they probably won't fold. But all you need is some chance that they will to continue betting the turn. This may not apply to the micro-limits, but for the most part I have seen decent but often overaggressive play from 2-4 through 5-10. It's at 5-10 that I started to see players making too many semibluff raise and semibluff checkraise plays, but not at 3-6. The 3-6 I've played on-line has been more straightforward, so I based my response on that experience.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, Paul Stine, 20. Mar 2003 20:51
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 20. Mar 2003 16:43 timmer wrote:
> FOLD ?? FOLD?!
> what make you think these mullet minds would fold . they didnt travel all the way from
> Pocima to Baker to fold they came to call and to play. Dont you know that folding is a
> fricking big club you use to beat your opponents senseless. Dont be such a fish.
>

It's Pacoima!

Paul Stine
College Station, TX
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, TOM WAGGONER, 20. Mar 2003 17:08
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I think that it is a raise or fold situation preflop, depending mostly on your read of the cuttoffs hand. The big question, Is he trying for a semi steal here, or trying to isolate the one limper? With only one limper in so far, I think I would have three bet him before the flop, too try and get him heads up with position, because then, you might be able to bluff him off AK after the flop. Folding an AQ in this spot is not too bad a play either. The hand seems too cause more trouble for me than it's worth.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, rusty JEDI, 21. Mar 2003 04:13
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
In my opinion you made a common error that players often make. You put the one guy 78s or 88 and the other on 99 or TT. I feel you put these players on these hands because you really hoped that if you spiked your overcard A or Q you would win it.

It is like the situation where you hold QQ, so you put the other preflop raiser on AK...and then flop comes AK7, so now you change your mind and put him on 99 or TT and then play on because your QQ is still leading,,,,but if the flop had come 9TJ you would then keep him on your original read of AK, and continue playing.

Too often people will change there read like this to justify playing on when they are likely beat.

I am curious what information you were using to put the two players on the hands you did, the first guy with 78s or 88 and the other with 99 or TT. From your description of the hand i dont see any reason for these reads.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Playing Overcards, 3Kings, 21. Mar 2003 07:59
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 21. Mar 2003 04:13 rusty JEDI wrote:
> In my opinion you made a common error that players often make. You put the one guy
> 78s or 88 and the other on 99 or TT. I feel you put these players on these hands
> because you really hoped that if you spiked your overcard A or Q you would win it.
>
> It is like the situation where you hold QQ, so you put the other preflop raiser on
> AK...and then flop comes AK7, so now you change your mind and put him on 99 or TT and
> then play on because your QQ is still leading,,,,but if the flop had come 9TJ you
> would then keep him on your original read of AK, and continue playing.
>
> Too often people will change there read like this to justify playing on when they
> are likely beat.
>
> I am curious what information you were using to put the two players on the hands you
> did, the first guy with 78s or 88 and the other with 99 or TT. From your description
> of the hand i dont see any reason for these reads.

My read came from the fact this player (cutoff) seemed to have decent starting hands. From my experience playing with the other players at the table, I knew it would get checked to him, he would bet and I could raise. If he had a great hand such as AA, KK, QQ, even JJ he would have reraised me and I could have avoided calling him down (Again, this is my read based on playing against him for awhile). The other player was the type who would have folded on the flop if it didn't hit him. That is why I put him on a pair (since there was no flush draw). With the way the flop hit, I didn't think (again based on me knowing my opponents) either of them had a set or would have called two bets with a 5 in their hand). Same reasoning for the turn, I was 99% the 5 didn't help anyone and if I checked I might have gotten bet into on the river...in this case it wouldn't have mattered since an A came.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
       POKER FORUM HOME   |   POKER FORUM   |   LINK TO US   |   ARCHIVE   |   ONLINE POKER Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum  
Getting Started |  UPF Tournaments |  Poker News, Views, Rules |  Poker Strategy & Psychology |  Money and Bankroll
Poker Bonuses & Promotions |  World Series of Poker (WSOP) |  Play Online Poker |  Poker Odds & Statistics |  Tournament Poker |  Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools
Looking for a Poker Game |  Poker Bad Beats |  Not Quite Poker |  Quizzes and Polls |  Forum Suggestions & Bugs

Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network