|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 2/12/2012 11:10:37 PM PACIFIC |
 Creating confusion, Andrew Wells, 24. May 2003 20:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Morning 3-6 hold'em with a full kill, and four new faces. This game had been going all night, but curiously no one was short stacked. I quick counted about $2000 on the table, highly unusual. This is my third hand, I had mucked the previous ones. No kill is in effect as the last pot was split by two ace high straights. There are two calls and two folds out of early position. I'm looking at a small pair 5c5d and call expecting two players behind me and the small blind to come in. It's folded to the button who raises out the small but not the large blind. Both limpers on my right call the raise, and I make it three bets. The button just calls, as do the rest of the field. The flop is Qd 6s 3c with fourteen bets (raked) in the pot, checked to me and I bet hoping the button will raise out the single overcard and nothing hands. He cooperates and we lose the large blind and first limper. The other player calls the raise cold, which would concern me except I know he will raise preflop with any two big cards and leaks money playing suited cards to backdoor flush draws. I wouldn't have bet the flop if I wasn't going to see the turn; I know I don't have a hand but I backraised preflop for deception, might develop a situation, and at worst will get some advertising value. I complete the action with a call. The turn brings the 2c with ten big bets in the pot. We both check to the button who bets, and the player in front of me folds. I raise, and the button disgustedly chucks his AdJd face up. Please no replies that say I played a bad hand and got lucky. I know I got a lucky result, I'm just posting this as a reminder that you don't have to always play ABC and grind out that BB/hr. escaping the suckouts when you have the best hand, or catching some nut draws. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, JLenart, 25. May 2003 06:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Andrew, I'll not say you played the hand badly but I will say you have major guts. Some might say a big pair...lol. Nice reads at that table man. John | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Snorbolus, 25. May 2003 12:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hello Andrew, You made some decisions that I don't understand. > large blind. Both limpers on my right call the raise, and I make it three bets...... Why did you 3 bet here? Did these guys seem especially weak-tight and you were trying to set them up for a daring bluff? Presumably you have something other than "no set no bet" in mind for the flop as raising reduces your odds. > The flop is Qd 6s 3c with ...... > fourteen bets (raked) in the pot, checked to me and I bet hoping the button will > raise out the single overcard and nothing hands....... What about his hand, AQ for instance? >We both check to the button who bets, and the > player in front of me folds. I raise, and the button disgustedly chucks his AdJd > face up..... This is the play that I really don't understand. You folded out a worse hand than your own. I don't see what good outcome you expected here. Either the button has you beaten and will call your raise (or, God forbid, re-raise) or you are ahead anyway and he will fold. What were you hoping for? I am not trying to be critical. I am just a beginner trying to improve my game. But if you played this hand well then I can learn something from more explanation because I can't see it. Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Andrew Wells, 25. May 2003 13:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I hardly ever make that play of backraising with a small pocket pair. It's a risky high variance decision, that is done mainly for deception purposes. I had just sat down in a game that had lots of chips on the table, and the button had raised looking like he'd been up all night. I made a play with some possibility of being able to outplay him if things fall in place. It was at the point where he raised that I decided to shake things up a little bit. I also felt that if I put in the raise and later showed my hand, that I would get paid off several times in the next few hours. I'm representing a big hand like AA or AQs if I happen to flop a set. Since the flop had a single queen and the button didn't cap, I don't think AA or KK are out there. I just followed through on the flop with a bet saying I can beat top pair. I could check and fold, but that really defeats the purpose of making the reraise before the flop. After the button raised, I'm looking for something on the turn that I can semibluff with, and happened to pick up the gut shot. I don't think the button raised on the flop with a pocket pair, so I figure he either has AK or queen something. I don't want to call on the river, but I still want to show it down to get some advertising value out of the hand. If the other player had called the button's bet on the turn I can't make the checkraise play here, but he mucked. The deuce looks harmless enough, so the checkraise coupled with my preflop play could look like I had AA KK or a set of queens. If I get called by AQ, I'm probably not going to be looking at a bet if I check the river. I also have six cards in the deck that almost certainly beat whatever the button has, except for a five against top set. I got lucky that the player on the button was trying to steal on the turn. I just sat down to the end of an all night table, and I don't think a tight image is nearly as useful as a loose one under these conditions. Sure it costs me a few bets up front to overplay a hand, but there were four new players in the game that I wanted to get aroused by the possibility of future action. I didn't end up showing that hand, but I made kings full on the turn about five minutes later in a larger pot than I might have had otherwise. This was nice because the remaining five hours was just pushing a few chips back and forth. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Swagman, 25. May 2003 17:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well all your fine analysis of the hand seems a little short with the pre-flop action. It left me a little weary about the whole scenario. Accepting maybe one raise pre-flop and not a 3-bet action, then I would indeed gotten a raise eye-brow from me and I would have saluted you and told you that that was the best hand I had seen today. But with 2 people raising the flop I'd be thinking that there was at least a high pocket pair in the game. But after seeing the flop with a sole Q on board. You would be right that it was a perfect scenario for your pocket 5s to take it all. However, I do understand the reasoning behind your post. When you attribute being able to win without utilizing the ABC of poker as you called them. I don't know about you but I learned the ABC in kindergarten. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Andrew Wells, 26. May 2003 04:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The message I'm trying to convey is that players who always stay within the confines of what they have read in any of the worthwhile hold'em books, are missing the potential of simply crushing a table unless the deck just hits them over the head. Do I expect +EV on this particular hand by playing it as I did? No, but I'm not leaving after this hand either. If someone never does anything unusual early in a session (particularly against a table of sleepy heads), they don't get comfortable with how a tricky aggressive image can pay off later for more than the cost of a hand or two played differently. Mike Caro will stand pat on an early hand in a draw game with total crap. It's a little different in hold'em where there are more bets, but it's also more likely that crap gets lucky. I knew what I was doing and didn't necessarily expect to win this one, but I thought it was interesting enough (since I didn't flop a set and needed a situation to develop) to illustrate metagame concepts. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Swagman, 26. May 2003 05:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I understand what your were trying to convey. The illustration was a bit short is all. I too, kinda get a little saddened when I read so many post here from players that have those group charts memorized in so many of the books that are about, as to what hands should be played in what postion, against how may opponent, during what phase of the moon. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Andrew Wells, 26. May 2003 06:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I deliberately posted without full explaination of my actions so I would have something else to say other than pure rebuttal. There's still more to explore in this hand, such as why I wasn't concerned with the button having AQ. There is also his play which might seem a bit odd, knowing it was AJs. I'm leaving these topics for other replies if this thread generates sufficient interest. I also agree with you that there are some players who use this forum that are good enough to benefit from taking their game beyond the books. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Snorbolus, 26. May 2003 07:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I am not a big fan of random acts of trickiness, even early in a session. I do think that being, and being seen to be, just a little tricky is very important. However, I would much rather keep my head down for a couple of rounds at the start, and get a feel for how my opponents like to play. Then use that information to at least reduce the cost of establishing such an image. For instance: I like to make thin value bets, with marginal hands, into a player who often calls with second pair or worse on the river. Or try an occasional bluff raise, against a weak player who raised the flop, when the 3rd suited card hits on the turn. If you can find opportunities to make these kinds of play, against *only* the appropriate type of opponent, this puts you in a very good position. Ideally the tight players will see you betting thin against the loose-gooses and call you more. Whereas the loose players will see you making occasional bluffs (but will fail to notice that they are only at tight players), and will carry on calling you too much; because they can't stand the thought that you might be trying to bet them off of their hand. I much prefer this type of approach to establishing a slightly tricky image than to simply pound the crap out of poor cads into a large field and hope for the best. Andrew's posts are usually very persuasive but I still don't see what he was up to here. Looking forward to further explanation. Snorbolus on 26. May 2003 05:22 Swagman wrote: > ..... I too, kinda get a little saddened when I read so many post here from players that have >those group charts memorized in so many of the books ........... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Andrew Wells, 26. May 2003 20:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It's probably wide open for debate as to whether it is better to wait awhile before mixing it up, or to do so immediately. Your examples seem perfectly valid in the context of your playing style. Here I walk into the card room expecting to see several short stacks, and far less money on the table than I do. This was unanticipated, so my reaction is to look for something unusual to do right away. I don't know if this is the best approach, but I'm willing to adjust well off of any result here. If I'm actually up against a set of queens, then I look real stupid when I muck those fives face up and say something like "I don't think I can bluff you any further on this hand." Now this may or may not matter, but the player on the button was a new kid. Suppose he's read and fully understands Lee Jones' material, then he gets to feel good about laying down AQ since the book says you are almost always beat when you're raised on the turn by someone who hasn't backed down. And he'd be right, as most of the time I'll have AA or better in this spot. There is something to be gained here regardless of this individual result. Sure backraising a small pocket pair preflop is controversial, and I haven't done this enough to be even close to determining the overall value for a session. Maybe I am spending too many bets on image, but I thought it was worth it on a table with an excessive number of chips. I don't see much point in starting a thread such as: I raised with pocket aces and this sucker hit a runner runner flush to beat me, what could I have done? I didn't sit down thinking I'm going to overplay the first pocket pair I get dealt. The hand just developed that way. Lots of things could have gone differently. The button may not have decided to make an unconventional raise on the flop for a free card. I don't think that's a bad play on his part looking for a diamond or the fourth part of a straight on the turn, if he can get to the river for no more bets. He might catch an ace and check as well, hoping to induce a bluff or bet from a weaker hand on the river. He has more possibilities with the raise than with a weak call. He missed on the turn but got it down to three handed, so he tried a questionable steal when he got checked to. Understandable yes, my play not so if one just thinks about an isolated hand. The whole way after making the preflop reraise, I was simply adjusting to a chain of events. If it looks kind of bizarre, that's fine. I shake the table up if I hit the set or gut shot on the river, and play off that image for awhile. I look stupid if I get reraised on the turn or I get called and showdown the hand unimproved on the river and lose the pot. Yet I get to play off that image too. Maybe not worth nine small bets investment in such an image but then there's a third possibility, what did happen. This time I just took the decent pot instead. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, shorn, 27. May 2003 05:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I am all for shaking things up and providing a little advertising to a table for future action, especially with a group of players that are likely paying attention. However, I would have waited a bit to see how the table was playing before making a move like this. Since they have been around all night (and are most likely well off their games), you may run into someone who just calls all the way with a pair of 6's because they are tired and don't care. In my experience, trying to bluff a table full of "all nighters" doesn't work very often. But, I can't argue with your result. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Andrew Wells, 27. May 2003 15:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I was semibluffing, there's a huge difference. I do agree with your assessment that it's probably not such a wise idea to run a pure bluff on someone you haven't watched for awhile. No one was short stacked and the guy did raise on his button. Maybe one or two of the players were bad but having a great run (it turned out that was the case), but I didn't know that yet. I didn't think this guy was the calling station type or that he would play an underpair to the queen, as a backraise often means pocket aces or big suited cards. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Snorbolus, 27. May 2003 05:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks for the reply, and for the original post. This is an interesting topic. Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Creating confusion, Andrew Wells, 27. May 2003 15:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Every so often you read some of the strong players on this forum recommend making the occasional -EV play for future action purposes. I thought it was time for an actual example. I just happened to get the least likely result, the pot with no showdown. | ||
| 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 |
|