|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/21/2008 5:48:52 PM PACIFIC |
 More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), Snorbolus, 26. Jun 2003 06:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Still thinking about betting pocket jacks into a large field with a coordinated, queen high board. I re-read Sklansky and Malmuth's HPFAP section on "When the Pot Gets Big" [page 169, 21st Century Edition]. The also seem to advocate betting in this type of position. After writing about betting at a large pot with just a gutshot (their example is from early position, but I think that they could very well mean when first in), they go on to write: "Similar advice applies for a pair (except small pocket pairs). If you are first, the pot is large, and you have a pair, you usually should bet it even if you knew that you were beat. You are not trying to win it right there. ......" The reasoning seems to be that: even though you will usually loose, if you can bet and knock out somebody who would have beaten you a small percentage of those (small percentage) of times that you do improve, this is enough to make the play +EV. I suppose in our pocket jacks example that would be players drawing to a straight that another jack would make for them, also anybody with a Queen, weak kicker (perhaps one of the blinds). I have to say, I am still unconvinced about this idea. Would anybody out there with Turbo Texas Hold'em care to run a few simulations to check it out for us? Sklansky and Malmuth's caveat was "Remember, you were going to call anyway." I am pretty sure that I wasn't going to call anyway in the pocket Jacks example - but that is also true of their nothing but a gutshot, ace on the board, example. I certainly can not use any of these plays until I understand them better. This could be a leak in my game. Somebody please help. Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), Roy Cooke, 26. Jun 2003 06:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi Snorbolus Conceptually speaking.....As the pot gets big ...Any play that improves the percentage chance of you winning it adds positive value to the play....How much value is added depends on the size of the pot and the percentage chance increased.... Roy Cooke on 26. Jun 2003 06:13 Snorbolus wrote: > Still thinking about betting pocket jacks into a large field with a coordinated, > queen high board. I re-read Sklansky and Malmuth's HPFAP section on "When the > Pot Gets Big" [page 169, 21st Century Edition]. The also seem to advocate > betting in this type of position. > > After writing about betting at a large pot with just a gutshot (their example > is from early position, but I think that they could very well mean when first > in), they go on to write: > > "Similar advice applies for a pair (except small pocket pairs). If you are > first, the pot is large, and you have a pair, you usually should bet it even if > you knew that you were beat. You are not trying to win it right there. ......" > > The reasoning seems to be that: even though you will usually loose, if you can > bet and knock out somebody who would have beaten you a small percentage of those > (small percentage) of times that you do improve, this is enough to make the play > +EV. I suppose in our pocket jacks example that would be players drawing to a > straight that another jack would make for them, also anybody with a Queen, weak > kicker (perhaps one of the blinds). > > I have to say, I am still unconvinced about this idea. Would anybody out there > with Turbo Texas Hold'em care to run a few simulations to check it out for us? > > Sklansky and Malmuth's caveat was "Remember, you were going to call anyway." I > am pretty sure that I wasn't going to call anyway in the pocket Jacks example - > but that is also true of their nothing but a gutshot, ace on the board, > example. > > I certainly can not use any of these plays until I understand them better. This > could be a leak in my game. Somebody please help. > > Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), chasepoker, 26. Jun 2003 06:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Coming back to original question for what its worth i would have 100% for sure bet out with the pot that big and you raising preflop you HAVE to bet out most. 2 results of this are going to be either someone reraises ( where you probably fold ) or you get to see 4th street against probably one or two other people and it will probably get chcked to you and you can reasses the situation. In my experience ,as has been stated here, once the pot gets big forget about saving bets and just concentratre on winning the pot ! Chasepoker | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), shorn, 26. Jun 2003 06:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Texture of the board and how your opponents play is important too and that is why I advocate not betting. We have beaten this thing to death, but you are not getting the best of it here by betting out. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), shorn, 26. Jun 2003 06:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The key difference in this example versus S&M's is that you aren't first to act. Sure, you can represent AQ by betting on the button, but there is a chance that you will be checkraised by one of the other 6 people. If you were in the SB with your JJ, then I am much more apt to bet it out and potetnially HOPE that someone raises behind you to thin the field. As Roy pointed out yesterday (and this much is true), you may be able to fold out the 44's and the K9's in this example for a bet and those hands might beat you with a free card. I am also willing to concede that betting MAY have some very small positive expectation simply because you may get those types of hands to fold. I just don't think checking here is one of those "catastrphic" errors that will cost you the pot because the likelihood that you are ahead now AND that you will be ahead at the end is so remote that (IMHO) this outweighs the small small positive of betting those hands out of the pot. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), Easy E, 26. Jun 2003 07:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 26. Jun 2003 06:40 shorn wrote: I just > don't think checking here is one of those "catastrphic" errors that will cost you the > pot because the likelihood that you are ahead now AND that you will be ahead at the > end is so remote that (IMHO) this outweighs the small small positive of betting those > hands out of the pot. So you should be folding? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), shorn, 26. Jun 2003 07:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| No, but you should be very reluctant to contribute any more $$ to this pot because the return on your investment is likely to be negative. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), McMonkey, 26. Jun 2003 07:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I know it's late to stick my head in, but maybe this will clear things up a bit. Now I'm pretty new, so I may be way off but here's how I see it: If you check it is essentially a delayed fold. You are admitting that you don't have the best hand and on the turn/river you're gonna fold to a bet. Best case scenario here is everyone checks the rest of the way. Worst case someone bets on the turn/river and you fold. You have virtually no chance of winning (since another J will complete the st8 draw), but you lose no more money. If you raise you're trying to take control of the pot. Maybe a couple of marginal hands will fold (like a st8 draw or Q-(relatively)low kicker) and you'll have a little better chance of catching your J or, depending on the turn/river, stealing the pot. Best case, you catch your J and there are no str8 draws or you steal the pot. Worst case you get called the rest of the way by a better hand and lose 3-5 bets. So it boils down to playing style. Since the original poster said he was one of the rocks at the table a raise might make the others think twice and stealing the pot may be an option. For me, I'd fold (or check/fold) unless I had a large chip lead AND had the image of a rock. Even then I'd have to think about it. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), shorn, 26. Jun 2003 08:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, the option is that it is checked to you on the flop with 14 bets in the pot, so there are so many draws that will call you with proper odds, I dare say you can't "take control of the pot". Hell, someone with AT who has 5 outs is getting the best of it by calling. My point is that id you are playing against rocks and they ALL call your raise before the flop, the chance that JJ is now good or will be good at the river is so close to 0% that you shouldn't throw any more money in the pot. Would you call the flop if it is bet to you from anyone other than the guy to your immediate right (who you then can raise and maybe fold everyone else out and potentially get him to throw it away, or if not, get to the river card for 2 small bets at least)? Of course you wouldn't. Those Jakes would be right in the muck. I think we all agree that betting is a semibluff here. In my understanding, for a semibluff to be correct, there are two criteria that need to be there: 1. You must have a chance at winning the pot right there. 2. You must have a hand that is likely second best now, but has the potential to become the best hand. OK, which of the two criteria does your hand meet? Uh...it meets neither. The pot is not small enough for everyone to fold, and there are virtually no cards that can come to help you (with the lone exception of "perfect perfect") that won't potentially help someone more than you. Effectively, I look at this the same I would a small pair that you raise the button with in hopes to build a pot when you flop a set. No set = no bet. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), Mark, 26. Jun 2003 09:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Shorn I agree with McMonkey. By checking you are giving up any chance to win the pot. If a complete blank falls on the turn, a pair of 10s may bet out, and you have to would fold. By betting you drive out alot of weak draws and make the strong draws pay. JJ may be the winning hand at this point or a weak Q may fold. You'll never know by checking, but betting (or even raising) will let you know where you stand. As I see it, you are pay one small bet for a chance to win 14+ small bets. And if you check, you pay nothing but give up any chance to with the pot. The reason you now have 0 chance to win the pot is because of the theory which states if you're willing to call a bet, you should bet first. Since your not willing to bet, you must be looking to fold. Mark If your not going to bet in the face of a single overcard, you should never open raise JJ to begin with. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), shorn, 26. Jun 2003 09:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Like I said to stdioh, that's fine. Fire away. I will save my $$ for a +EV play. BTW, what weak draws are you going to fold?? They will be getting 15-1 to call and anyone who has at least 3 outs (44/3 = 14.66 to 1) is getting the best of it calling. What stated "tight aggressive player" is going to fold to one bet with those odds. In fact, anyone with Qx SHOULD call. Also, what hands do you think you are in against? No one ever answered my question yesterday of being able to name 6 hands that tight aggressive players would limp/call a raise with from the blinds, EP, and MP, ALL of which you could beat (or which you can reasonably expect to be ahead of at the end). Again, your hypothesis of "risking 1 bet to win 14" is all well and good if there is ANY chance that you could actually win the 14 right now or on the end. It is not like the flop came Q72 or K72. Whole different story because the draws that we are talking about wouldn't be there. So, the chance of "winning" the 14 bets That is where we disagree. I think that the onlyway that you can win this pot (and hence the only +EV way to play this hand) is to check to the river and maybe by miracle your Jacks are good. You might conider this weak poker...I consider it increasing my hourly win rate by the likely 1.5 BB's I will save. And, you definitely should raise pre-flop in case you flop your set or an overpair. Might as well build a pot if you flop favorably (which you most certainly haven't). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), noiseboy, 26. Jun 2003 10:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm with shorn on this one. All bets and raises at this point are mostly going to benefit the best drawing hand. It's Morton's theorem for any of you who frequent rgp in addition to UPF. If said drawing hand understands pot odds, he WILL raise you to maximize the pot when he has the best of it and you WILL have to fold your JJ's to a raise because of the danger of a Q. Other weaker draws, and the Q will have to stay in due to pot odds, but you will have to FOLD. Where's the benefit? The only argument I can see for betting this is if the players are COMPLETELY weak. Then you might get everyone to fold 1 in 14 times. Actually, they'd have to be weak and have virtually no knowledge of pot odds. I know giving a free card is a big no-no in limit poker, but mostly this is true when you have the best hand, and people are trying to draw out on you. When you don't have the best hand in a multi-way situation, you want to GET a free card. Again, if there are fewer players, and there is a chance you will fold out better hands than yours, then bet, I'm just not sure that is the case here. I think you will be maximizing the pot when you will win it less than your fair share. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), stdioh, 26. Jun 2003 14:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yes, but they didn't cold call your raise - even rocks know that if you call one you should call another. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: More about those Jacks (but please read it anyway), noiseboy, 27. Jun 2003 09:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| True, if the opponents are all rocks then a bet might be the way to go. I'm still not sure if he's talking about rocks or tight aggressive players. If they were tight aggressive players, I think the chance of a raise here is very high. | ||
| 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 |
|