|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 8/29/2008 12:28:57 PM PACIFIC |
 Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, Dynasty, 6. Jul 2003 02:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Here's a Bellagio 30-60 hand I observed while waiting to get into a game. I know nothing substanial about the players in the game. The first two players folded and UTG3 open-raised. It was folded to Roy Cooke in MP who called. Everybody else folded to the Big Blind who called. 3 players saw the flop for 2 bets each. The flop is: KcQhJc Big Blind bet out. UTG3 (pre-flop raiser) raised. Roy Cooke called. Big Blind called. The turn is: KcQhJc8s Big Blind bet. UTG3 bet. Roy Cooke raised. Big Blind said "I guess my King is no good" and flashed the Ks when he mucked. UTG3 called. The river is: KcQhJc8s8h UTG3 check and Roy Cooke checked. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, 4 POKER, 6. Jul 2003 02:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yeah, and? .............where's the rest of the story?!!!!! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, Roy Cooke, 6. Jul 2003 08:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| And the rest of the story is i had QJ of Spades and the upfront raiser had AQ of clubs.....The King would have beaten me had he not folded.... Roy Cooke on 6. Jul 2003 02:50 4 POKER wrote: > Yeah, and? .............where's the rest of the story?!!!!! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, stdioh, 6. Jul 2003 16:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm curious Roy. I would have thought it your style to 3-bet there with the bottom 2 pair and try to take control of the hand...find out if you are up against AT or a set. The cold call there looks pretty limp and if I were sitting at the table against a regular opponent I had some respect for who did that I'd *know* he was on 2 pair or AK. A set would definitely be raising, and a made straight would be pumping it too. The player acting after 2 bets and just calling is broadcasting that he has something good enough to stick around with and figures that he might be good, but is probably drawing slim. Thus, AK is sitting there hoping for a king or a ten to fall and 2 pair is sitting there looking at 4 outs. With the 3-bet on the other hand you could have any number of hands. You could be on 2 pair, a set, a made straight, or AA (though your calling preflop makes that look doubtful) ... or for that matter TT and pulling something fancy. Your three bet would have to knock the original bettor off of anything weaker than 2 pair himself, and the reraiser has to call you, but isn't going to want to bet into you on the turn without something monumentally strong. If he comes back and caps the flop or leads the straight, you can play running scared and hope for good fortune to be with you, but when you're in this spot, I think the reraise is essential for knowing where you are in the hand. Anyhow, Roy. I do very much respect and admire your opinions and I would really like to hear your thoughts on this hand as you were playing it and why you made the decisions that you did. As you are so fond of saying, everything depends, and I'm sure there would be scenarios in which I would just call there too. What did you know about your opponents? What hands were you reading them for, etc? Thanks. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, Roy Cooke, 7. Jul 2003 13:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi It was a strangely played hand. The game I was in was fairly loose and passive. I called the raise pre-flop with many players to act behind me. I thought it likely that I would get more callers. I did not! On the flop, I thought my hand could be in bad shape. I could beat AK or AA...But was not in great shape on the flop against those two hands with bottom two. The blind had to have something to lead into the field. Any card that helped one hand likely helped the other. I waited for the turn to see what came off...If I liked the card I was going to hit it. I believe it was an 8 that rolled off and I raised the turn. The big blind did show the king (bad etiquette) and fold. The opener had AQ clubs....the board paired bottom card and we both checked and I won with Queens and Jacks. With that texture of board I chose to delay playing the hand aggressively. With one to come I was in much better shape against AA or AK (Or AQ clubs) as long as blank came off (creating greater expectation on the turn raise than I would have had on the flop raise). If a bad one came off I could ditch the hand (saving me expectation).....It was a offshoot of the greater gain...lower loss concept. That was my thoughts in the hand! Roy Cooke on 6. Jul 2003 16:19 stdioh wrote: > I'm curious Roy. I would have thought it your style to 3-bet there with the bottom 2 pair and > try to take control of the hand...find out if you are up against AT or a set. The cold call > there looks pretty limp and if I were sitting at the table against a regular opponent I had > some respect for who did that I'd *know* he was on 2 pair or AK. A set would definitely be > raising, and a made straight would be pumping it too. The player acting after 2 bets and just > calling is broadcasting that he has something good enough to stick around with and figures that > he might be good, but is probably drawing slim. Thus, AK is sitting there hoping for a king or > a ten to fall and 2 pair is sitting there looking at 4 outs. > > With the 3-bet on the other hand you could have any number of hands. You could be on 2 pair, a > set, a made straight, or AA (though your calling preflop makes that look doubtful) ... or for > that matter TT and pulling something fancy. > > Your three bet would have to knock the original bettor off of anything weaker than 2 pair > himself, and the reraiser has to call you, but isn't going to want to bet into you on the turn > without something monumentally strong. If he comes back and caps the flop or leads the > straight, you can play running scared and hope for good fortune to be with you, but when you're > in this spot, I think the reraise is essential for knowing where you are in the hand. > > Anyhow, Roy. I do very much respect and admire your opinions and I would really like to hear > your thoughts on this hand as you were playing it and why you made the decisions that you did. > As you are so fond of saying, everything depends, and I'm sure there would be scenarios in > which I would just call there too. What did you know about your opponents? What hands were you > reading them for, etc? > > Thanks. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, shorn, 7. Jul 2003 13:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Roy- I am curious as to why this "greater gain, lower loss" concept didn't apply to the JJ hand that we all talked about a while back. You (if I recall correctly) advocated betting into 6 players on the button with an underpair of Jacks, while I and others thought that this was a bad play because there were so many other outs to beat you. Sounds like the pot was close to being called "big" here (10 bets to you on the flop), and you had less opponents to deal with. Am I missing something else? Anyway, I am not trying to bring up a thread that was put to rest before. I am just trying to marry your concept described with that hand and where it doesn't apply. Thanks, Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, Roy Cooke, 8. Jul 2003 07:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi Shorn Every situation is different....With the KQJ suited board....many hands could be a favorite or close to a favorite over my hand. AA and AK are no big dog and an open-ender is getting the right price on the flop. Also, I could be in big trouble on that flop. If a blank comes off they are NOT getting the right price for two bets if my hand is good...... I have increased my expectation field by delaying the raise until the turn. Also, players put you on a bigger hand raising the turn and are less likely to reraise. On the JJ hand..(I am not sure I remember the flop exactly), MANY free cards would beat my hand that MAY fold to a bet.....Since it checked to me a Q does not have to be out....The pot is big and I am more interested in protecting the bets in the pot rather than worry about wasting a small bet! Small increases in chances to win a big pot are worth a lot of expectation! Roy Cooke on 7. Jul 2003 13:45 shorn wrote: > Roy- > > I am curious as to why this "greater gain, lower loss" concept didn't apply to the JJ hand that we all > talked about a while back. You (if I recall correctly) advocated betting into 6 players on the button > with an underpair of Jacks, while I and others thought that this was a bad play because there were so > many other outs to beat you. Sounds like the pot was close to being called "big" here (10 bets to you on > the flop), and you had less opponents to deal with. Am I missing something else? > > Anyway, I am not trying to bring up a thread that was put to rest before. I am just trying to marry > your concept described with that hand and where it doesn't apply. > > Thanks, > > Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, shorn, 8. Jul 2003 07:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks for the reply Roy. Still not sure we agree on this one (the flop was QT5 I think), but it is great to see another perspective that can be applied, and yours is always much appreciated. Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke/ good advice, timmer, 8. Jul 2003 07:56 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 8. Jul 2003 07:33 Roy Cooke wrote: Every situation is different.. [I have] increase [d] my expectation field by delaying the raise until the turn. Also, players put you on a bigger hand raising the turn and are less likely to reraise. The pot is big and I am more interested in protecting the bets in the pot rather than worry about wasting a small bet! Small increases in chances to win a big pot are worth a lot of expectation! > > Roy Cooke | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, Dynasty, 7. Jul 2003 18:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks for providing comments on this interesting hand. 4 POKER seemed to suggest that posting the hand would be an intrusion. Since you so often put your hands into print, I assumed it was no big deal. The hand is also posted on 2+2. If it does bother you, I'm sorry. I was watching rather passively but was struck by your sequence of cold-call two bets, cold-call two bets, raise, check behind. When given time to think about it, there isn't much you can have but QJs. However, I didn't even consider that on the previous streets. Almost every other hand hand I would have considered would have bet the river. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, Roy Cooke, 8. Jul 2003 07:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I have no problem whatsoever with the post! Roy Cooke on 7. Jul 2003 18:52 Dynasty wrote: > Thanks for providing comments on this interesting hand. 4 POKER seemed to suggest that posting the hand > would be an intrusion. Since you so often put your hands into print, I assumed it was no big deal. The > hand is also posted on 2+2. If it does bother you, I'm sorry. > > I was watching rather passively but was struck by your sequence of cold-call two bets, cold-call two > bets, raise, check behind. When given time to think about it, there isn't much you can have but QJs. > However, I didn't even consider that on the previous streets. Almost every other hand hand I would have > considered would have bet the river. > > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, stdioh, 9. Jul 2003 11:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 7. Jul 2003 13:12 Roy Cooke wrote: > Hi > > It was a strangely played hand. The game I was in was fairly loose and passive. I called the raise > pre-flop with many players to act behind me. I thought it likely that I would get more callers. I > did not! > > On the flop, I thought my hand could be in bad shape. I could beat AK or AA...But was not in great > shape on the flop against those two hands with bottom two. The blind had to have something to lead > into the field. Any card that helped one hand likely helped the other. I waited for the turn to see > what came off...If I liked the card I was going to hit it. I believe it was an 8 that rolled off and > I raised the turn. The big blind did show the king (bad etiquette) and fold. The opener had AQ > clubs....the board paired bottom card and we both checked and I won with Queens and Jacks. > > With that texture of board I chose to delay playing the hand aggressively. With one to come I was > in much better shape against AA or AK (Or AQ clubs) as long as blank came off (creating greater > expectation on the turn raise than I would have had on the flop raise). If a bad one came off I > could ditch the hand (saving me expectation).....It was a offshoot of the greater gain...lower loss > concept. > > That was my thoughts in the hand! > > Roy Cooke I like what you have to say Roy, except for that last bit about waiting for a card. If you think you have the best of it now, then generally now is when you should get the money in. By waiting for a blank to hit you are playing your made hand as a drawing hand - drawing to a many-outer of blanks. While here it may have been correct, I think that the point should be made that this sort of passive play is, in general, not good. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, 4 POKER, 6. Jul 2003 18:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 6. Jul 2003 08:59 Roy Cooke wrote: > And the rest of the story is i had QJ of Spades and the upfront raiser had AQ of > clubs.....The King would have beaten me had he not folded.... > > Roy Cooke > > on 6. Jul 2003 02:50 4 POKER wrote: > > Yeah, and? .............where's the rest of the story?!!!!! Roy, I'll be honest ........(with all due respect to you)....I could care less. Someone posts up a story.....(which IMO didn't need to include your name along with it, and decides to not even finish the end of the hand. And that is why I said, "where's the rest of the story", . If you want to share any of your experiences....you will. And because everything DOES depend.....it may just be misleading when somebody posts up a story without even knowing the entire situation (table texture, image, loosenness, etc.). I just wanted you to know where I am coming from so.....for what it's worth........ 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Maybe the non-finish was intentional, 4P?, Easy E, 7. Jul 2003 10:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| in order to give people a chance to work some things out? Maybe we COULD have given Dynasty more than 9 minutes? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Maybe the non-finish was intentional, 4P?, Snorbolus, 7. Jul 2003 11:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| That's what I thought too. I don't read the 2+2 groups (because I find them inconvenient to navigate through) but all of Dynasty's posts to this forum have been interesting and strictly about poker. I think that we should be trying to encourage this sort of poster to come back more often. By the way, I was thinking something like JTclubs for Roy's hand. A nice, not too dominated hand to call an early position raise with. Snorbolus on 7. Jul 2003 10:25 Easy E wrote: > in order to give people a chance to work some things out? > > Maybe we COULD have given Dynasty more than 9 minutes? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Maybe the non-finish was intentional, 4P?, Snorbolus, 7. Jul 2003 12:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Oops, Not too likely, given the Jclubs on the board. Another good theory bites the dust. Snorbolus > By the way, I was thinking something like JTclubs for Roy's hand. A nice, not too dominated hand to call > an early position raise with. > > Snorbolus > > on 7. Jul 2003 10:25 Easy E wrote: > > in order to give people a chance to work some things out? > > > > Maybe we COULD have given Dynasty more than 9 minutes? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Maybe the non-finish was intentional, 4P?, Dynasty, 7. Jul 2003 18:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It was definitely intentional. A major reason to post hands is to allow others to work out the problem. If Roy hadn't posted the results himself (Roy won with QsJs, pre-flop raiser had AcQc), I would have put them up today. If you post the results too soon, it usually ruins the discussion. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, flintsword, 6. Jul 2003 09:56 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it against the rules to expose a card (or cards) prior to the end of a hand, in this case on the turn? Even if both players see it (show one, show all ...) the information from showing a card (or cards) could be of unequal benefit to one of the remaining players. 30/60 at the Mirage sounds like pretty serious poker to me, and I would just like to know for my personal poker knowledge ... and avoid getting shot if I do it sometime and it is a serious breach of rules ... lol. Not casting stones, ... just interested in knowing for future reference. flintsword | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, 4 POKER, 6. Jul 2003 18:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 6. Jul 2003 09:56 flintsword wrote: > Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it against the rules to expose a card (or cards) prior > to the end of a hand, in this case on the turn? Even if both players see it (show > one, show all ...) the information from showing a card (or cards) could be of unequal > benefit to one of the remaining players. > > 30/60 at the Mirage sounds like pretty serious poker to me, and I would just like to > know for my personal poker knowledge ... and avoid getting shot if I do it sometime > and it is a serious breach of rules ... lol. > > Not casting stones, ... just interested in knowing for future reference. > flintsword Unfortunarely, there is no rule that is set in stone about exposing a card and then folding. It is unethical however and shouldn't be done as it can only help and/or hurt the remaining players who are still in the hand by providing way too much information. 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, timmer, 7. Jul 2003 08:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I figured roy for bottom 2 or somthing like 10 9c when the board paired and he checked it back. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy Cooke hand from Bellagio 30-60, Easy E, 7. Jul 2003 10:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'd be surprised if Roy doesn't bet a straight here, based on the play of the hand as it went along AND his "Real Poker II" book that I'm reading right now. I should have tried to figure this out before reading Roy's response. I was a LITTLE surprised that he didn't bet the bottom 2, but Dynasty's "bet/bet/raise description of 4th (I assume the second bet was a call, not a raise that Roy reraised) may be clouding my analysis anyway. I assume Roy didn't think he'd get called by a worse hand. | ||
| 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 |
|