|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 5:07:50 PM PACIFIC |
 A $30-60 hold'em hand, Mark Gregorich, 1. Sep 2003 02:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I've just sat down in what looks to be a good $30-60 hold'em game at Bellagio, judging by the large number of unfamiliar faces I see. I post behind the button as a new player, and proceed to fold every hand around to my big blind. In the big blind, I have A9 offsuit. There are about 5 limpers, and we see a flop, which comes 779 all red. I check with the intention of raising a late position bettor, in the hopes of protecting my top pair, which I feel is probably the best hand at this point. Judging from what I've seen so far, though, a lead bet by me would probably be called by everyone holding two or possibly one overcard. So, I try for the checkraise to make it tougher on the overcards. Everyone checks. Oh, well. The turn is a red 9, putting two flush draws on the board. It also gives me a hand I don't feel anyone can outdraw, as I don't think anyone has an overpair, nor do I feel a 7 is out there. So, I am faced with the issue of how I can make the most money with this hand I feel I'm sure to win. I decide to check again, feeling one of my opponents will take a stab at the pot (in hindsight, I think leading out here against weak opponents may have been better, as they may stay with flush draws or call down with A high). Sure enough, the player to my left bets, and is called in three spots before it gets to me (who says Vegas poker is bad???). Well, now I have another decision. It would seem I have everyone trapped, so checkraising here would make me more money. However, I thought that with two pair on the board, my opponents would realize if I checkraised from the blind that they were drawing dead, and I would likely win the pot right there. So, I just called with the virtual nuts, feeling this was the only chance I had to make more money on the hand. The river is a diamond, completing the original flush draw (but not a straight flush card). Now, I bet out. I did this for two reasons - first, I was pretty sure this card made someone a flush, and they would surely call with it, but may not have bet it themself due to the two pair on board; and second, I wanted to give any kamikaze who happened to make the nut flush the opportunity to put me on a smaller one and raise me. It turns out I got one caller, and won the pot. I think I maximized my win here. Had I raised on the turn, I honestly feel that my opponents, while being a relatively soft bunch, would have recognized that they had no outs and collectively folded their hands. I could have gone for a checkraise on the river, but I'm not sure anyone would have bet, and had they bet, they may well not have paid off the raise. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A $30-60 hold'em hand, Donkey X, 1. Sep 2003 12:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| i like the lead on the turn idea but if they r weak enough that 4 people called a dbl paired brd on the turn im razing fig they r playing bad enough to call atleast 1 wld and w/ pay off on river u get 1 extra bet i think w/ players this poor anything works just dont run any naked bluffs as they r caliing. i live in Vegas and agree the games r great personally i never left the mirage (when bello opened) and the 20 40 is still fantastic but the 40 80 stud has moved witch hurts the bigger action a lit.( I l think u shld consider and omaha book there r no gd 1s since u r involved w/ the public relation side of poker know it wld be a gd time) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A $30-60 hold'em hand, stdioh, 2. Sep 2003 12:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I disagree with your play here Mark. If you were going to bet the river when such a card fell then you should have checkraised the turn. Any players on the other half of the flush draw would likely have paid you off even though they were drawing dead - I guess it depends on your idea of really bad players, but I see this sort of thing all the time on double paired boards and it has stopped surprising me. Most bad players are so conditioned to calling a raise after they have called a bet that they won't be able to stop themselves. On the river you're guaranteed to get no more than one caller and on the turn I think you'd have a hard time folding all of them after they called 1. When the flush draw completed, I can see you betting the river rather than trying to checkraise if you had checkraised the turn, but when you check called the turn, this is the time to punt at a river checkraise. As I said, I prefer checkraising the turn and betting the river here, but I think that if you check call the turn, a checkraise on the river is required. | ||
| 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 |
|