|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2009 9:08:53 PM PACIFIC |
 Ok, one more tournament hand, noiseboy, 16. May 2003 09:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Ok it's early in the tournament, the blinds are really low and you still have most of your chips, also the table has been pretty loose passive so far with most pots having 4-6 players. You are third in the betting and two people limp in before you. You look down and see pocket dueces. Do you call? The pot is already shaping up to be multiway, as the blinds are likely to come in, even if there is one raise. Also, all the early limpers make it likely that people in later position will come in with marginal holdings. I ended up folding the hand on the premise that "tight is right" early in the tournament, telling myself that I shouldn't be playing anything under 77s or so from this position. "Tight is right" is usually true in tournaments since you need all your chips for survival in the later rounds when it gets more aggressive; however, I would have certainly had odds to try to flop a set, and as it turns out I would've flopped Quads no less. Did I make the right play, or was this pass too tight? Thanks again! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, Jav, 16. May 2003 10:07 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It depends. Haha. Okay, in my opinion you probably did the right thing, and the fact that you would have flopped quads is probably just eating at you a little bit. If the flop had been anything but that, you would have been forced to fold to any action. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, noiseboy, 16. May 2003 10:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| True, I mean I know that drawing hands are usually just chip burners early on. But when the blinds are small, and you still have a ton of chips, do you think about implied odds and such? Normally, part of my tourney strategy is to forget about odds COMPLETELY since I only have so many chips, and once they're gone, that's it. Thanks for your input. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, Big_Slick, 16. May 2003 12:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| 2's are nothing but a money sucking hand. Too many bad things can happen with lonely 2's. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, SoCalPat, 16. May 2003 20:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I strongly disagree with all of the above. Your small pair plays great in multi-way, unraised pots, and judging by the table condition, this hand appears it will play that way. The price to play is a fraction of what your stack is, and short of multiple or expensive raises behind you (I'd even call one raise at this level easy in a limit tournament), this is the type of hand you need to play early in tournaments to start building your stack. And no one will respect your action if the flop hits you. You'll collect bets on every street. You didn't mention the structure of the tournament, but I would never say "Tight is right" unless it's no-limit against the most experienced of competition. You have to have a little looseness in your game early in tournaments, because otherwise, when you do get premium holdings, you'll get too much respect on your raises and very little action. Conversely, when you have a monster, people will have less respect for it because they remember the time you flopped a straight with 78s (Never mind that you were on the button, no one had raised, six people limped in and the blinds were passive all night long, so you feared no re-raise). As the blinds increase, so should your tightness -- to a degree. At a shorthanded table, or when you're down to the final 4-5 players, what's marginal early in the tourney could be the best hand now. You'll also be missing out on chances to take pots when you can see the flop cheaply and have it hit you over the head. That's where you make your hay. Because while you're waiting around for AA, KK and AK, others are building their stacks. And that's the only thing that matters in tournaments. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, Big_Slick, 18. May 2003 10:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Your small pair plays great in multi-way, unraised pots. Yeah? Well, guess what... so do straights and flushes. This means that even if you get lucky enough to flop a set, your measly 3-of-a-kind is second best. I'd even call one raise at this level. 2's are an exceptionally bad hand from early position. In the example given by NoiseBoy, there are still 7 players yet to bet. This makes it a bonehead play. What if you get re-raised? You gonna make it 3 bets now? Furthermore, from this position you have no idea how many players will end up in the pot. Most importantly, you are in a weak position to bet after the flop. Lets look at what else is wrong with deuces... First off, when you occasionally catch that 3rd deuce, there is just as much chance that someone else has flopped a set. And guess what? Theirs is larger. When this happens, you are going to lose a big pot. Secondly, how powerful are your 2's when a pair hits the board? You are easily beaten by anyone else with a pocket pair or someone who has made trips. Now your 2's are worthless. Thirdly, what happens when 2 pair hit the board? Once again, your 2's are junk and you're left to play the board. How good are those 2's looking now? Just forget about straights and flushes because that's a joke and just another way to suck more money from your bankroll. If you're willing to chase a flush with the 2 lowest cards in the deck, then I've got a seat waiting for you at my home game. Wanna play for the lowest straight in poker? Go ahead so we can read about your bad beat when you get "robbed" by a larger straight. So you tell me... where's the value in betting the lowest pair in poker? When you do flop a set and you think you have the best hand, how confidently can you bet it -- especially from early position? If you decide to be aggressive with your hand, you could be setting yourself up for a big lose by a player who is smooth calling. If you play passive and end up winning the hand, you're losing money by failing to exploit the best hand. The risk to reward here is way out of balance. So basically, I like 2's when I draw them in the BB and 2 more hit the flop. Other than that, I have no use for them. (OK... maybe that's a bit exaggerated.) Let's just say for the sake of argument that are a slight favorite over the long haul (which they're not.) I'll pass on the emotional and financial fluctuations they are apt to bring my bankroll and me. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, gunbuster, 16. May 2003 23:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If the table has been loose-passive and I don't think I'll have to call 2 more bets before the flop, I'd probably call right now. 22 is less of a money bleeder than trap hands like KJ. It's an easy flop-or-fold decision. No 2 on board, I'm out of there. You'll be getting the proper odds in most cases (as you expect most of the table to call). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, Andrew Wells, 18. May 2003 16:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In the early rounds I'll play any pair or even low to medium suited connectors from any position for one bet. I'm trying to take a shot when the chips have their lowest value to catch a big hand. I may even make it three bets with pocket sevens to send the message I'm here to be aggressive. I'm also just as likely to muck AJ or KQ in those early rounds as well. I want to win one or if possible two big hands before I begin to tighten up. If that doesn't happen, then I try to be selectively loose aggressive in the middle rounds until I'm back over the median stack size. Otherwise I bust out fairly quick. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, shorn, 19. May 2003 05:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think this hand is a clear muck preflop for all of the reasons that Big Slick mentioned. You just don't have enough information from 3rd position that you will get 5-7 players limping to warrant a call. Not only that, but if it is early in the tournament, do you realy know how the others are playing yet? I don't think so. 22 will bleed you dry if you play it often from the first 5 spots. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, Andrew Wells, 19. May 2003 21:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Just the first two rounds. My point is that I have a better than just possible shot if I accumulate enough chips early. I used to play these tight from the get go, but too many times I found that it was too tough when it gets down to two short tables before the final. Your point about 22 being garbage and dominated is valid if that were the only hand I got to play. Sure I don't know how may players are going to come in, but pot odds are not the concern. I'm using the chips when they have the least intrinsic value. At about the third level the chip values are more normalized in relation to the median stack size, and that's when paying attention to pot and implied odds becomes more important than taking shots. I much prefer to take risks early, and if I bust out - it's more satisfying than if I get ground down, and out six spots from the money. Rocks don't win tournaments, trash card players do. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, Big_Slick, 19. May 2003 22:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Rocks don't win tournaments, trash card players do. If you believe that, you're in for a rude awakening. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, Andrew Wells, 20. May 2003 05:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Whatever. I'm very satisfied with my tournament results since treating the opening rounds loosely. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, shorn, 20. May 2003 06:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I am not saying that 22 is unplayable all the time. Poker is situational and yes, the best players win tournaments by playing marginal hands and either bluffing them or hitting, no question. However, in this situation, I just think that 22 is too weak to play up front when it could possibly cost you your whole stack. You bring up very valid points about the intrinsic value of chips. They are definitely worth less early and that is the time to try to build a big stack. I am just not so sure that 22 qualifies for this play (in my book at least and yes, I am probably more of a rock than you). But, if it has been working for you then I can't argue with that. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, Andrew Wells, 20. May 2003 16:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I didn't read anything from the original post that would suggest this was a no-limit tourney. If you thought this was no-limit, I can see why you should be concerned with possibly getting involved for much of a stack. I assumed early rounds, nearly a full stack, and no one with an outstanding lead at the table. I'm just no longer willing to sit in a limit tourney and wait for a "playable" hand that may or may not come early enough to recover from if it is cracked. If I don't play the small pocket pair in the first two rounds, it probably won't be worthwhile other than as a semi-steal until the last three players are left. Players justifiably tighten up around level three, and from that point you seldom get any more multiway action. So I just take a few shots with or without pot odds since these odds are greatly skewed by the early chip value. There's still plenty of hands I can automatic muck, but I'm going to call a single bet early with two cards that may develop into a monster 5-10% of the time. Look at it this way, those few chips you put in play trying to catch a big hand early are only going to reduce the amount of your inevitable all-in hand in the middle to late stages. So I'm a couple of green short of what I could be at when I go all-in for my last 400. I think it's worth it to try and win a big one early so that my blind pressure is less than others when the desparation moves start happening. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, JunglingS, 19. May 2003 09:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I've said it a whole before, and this seems like a good opportunity to reiterate - There are two ways that I typically play a pocket pair: 1: Raise hard and limit the field. 2: Try to see a cheap flop - No set, no bet. Obviously the first method lends itself to high pairs, while the second requires a lot of limpers for good odds. In this case, you get a whole bunch of limpers, and a cheap flop. Most likely I would buy the cheap flop and see if anything develops. If it misses, I'm out as fast as possible. (Barring a possible bluff.) Of course all of this could be wrong, as I didn't really pay attention to how many limpers you said, and I'm too lazy right now to look at the post again. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ok, one more tournament hand, Huck, 20. May 2003 11:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If the table is that passive, then I would occasionally call with a low pair, even a pair of dueces, and sometimes I would even raise with them (as SoCalPat and Andrew Wells mentioned, you should play these cards sometimes for their deceptive value). Of course what you are looking for, almost exclusively, is a set or better. You do not continue to play, in most cases, with two pair, and of course you are wary of straights and flushes. Even if you play and lose the pot (if you lose and show your cards, you better do it cheaply), showing your pair of dueces can do a lot for your table image! So all in all, 22 is a playable hand, but you have to pick the right circumstances. A passive table with several likely callers is a good situation for playing them. | ||
| 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 | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|