|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2008 8:47:57 AM PACIFIC |
 Hand Analysis, Mark, 15. Sep 2003 08:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi all, This hand comes from a $3-6 online hold'em game. I don't play online too much (though i've started again). I don't like to play online because of a few reasons, one being i don't have enough time to calculate all the factors, which happened to me in this hand. Generally, i think i played the hand very well, but i am still unsure of what i should have been doing on the flop. $3-6 Online hold'em - Full table - Variety of styles at table I'm in the BB with Qc5c. Aggressiver EP raises, two loose-passive MPs call. I also call. Normally, i would muck this hand to a raise, but in this case the raiser is aggressive and will overplay many hands (such as overcards or a weak pair). Also, the two MP callers will call way too much, and stay to the river with single overcards (such as an Ace). So the pot is laying me 7:1 on my call, and if i make a hand i know i will get paid off. The Flop Jc, 8c, 3c A great flop! The problem is, how do I play it? This is probably in the 10% of flops the aggressive player may not bet and i don't want to give a free card to a K or A of clubs. Time's running out, have to make a decision quick. I ended up betting. I thought the probability of giving a free card was just too high. Also, the pot had 4 BBs in it, so i wouldn't mind taking it down right there (not a likely scenario against these guys). Should i have slowplayed the flop? tried for a check raise? I know a bet wouldn't knock out a K or A high draw so giving a free card couldn't be too bad. If i do check and the agg EP bets, he may end up betting the hand for me the whole way. The other problem is, this is one of the flops the loose passive players may fold against. What should i have done here? What should i be trying to do? In retrospect, my flop bet was probably very good as it doesn't look like i have the flush. To many people would slowplay or checkraise in that position. The way the hand played out, my flop bet ended up making me the most money, but only because of the turn card. On the flop, my 3 opponents flat called. At this point i put everyone on overcards, with the possibilities of higher flush draws. The Turn - As. This had to be a perfect card for me. I checked and the agg player bet. The 2 MPs called and i check-raised. Everyone calls. The river was a blank and i got 3 more BBs! I got those 9 extra big bets because of my flop bet and the turn card. But the real question i have is, how should i play that flop and WHY? If i was on the button or after the agg player, it would be easier to make a decision. I am having trouble trying to weight the possibility of an opponent having a draw against extracting the maximum number of bets from these players. Thanks in advance Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand Analysis, shorn, 15. Sep 2003 09:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think you played the hand perfectly, although I am not sure that I would have called the pre-flop raise even getting 7-1. Reason being, you need to hit at least two pair to win as flopping a Queen isn't going to be good enough. But, on to your question. I think betting the flop is the best play because no one will give you credit for having a flush. Likely, what they will think is that you have top pair and that you are afraid of overcards and giving someone with a lone club a free draw. So, you can only gain by betting and lose by checking and giving someone with the A or K of clubs a free shot. I also think the checkraise on the turn was a great play too, especially with the Ace coming off. That again reinforces that the "top pair that you were betting on the flop" isn't good anymore and anyone with an Ace will bet your flush for you. Then you get to checkraise and charge more money to the others who might have that lone club. Lastly, the pot is now big enough at the end that anyone with anything will call (in LL at least) on the off chance that they have the best hand. Sklansky recommends betting the non-nut flush right out on thre flop because no one will give you credit for it, you are charging higher lone clubs to draw, AND you may get unlimited action from someone with two pair or top set. So, you made the right play. Sklansky also recommends to "bet out your good hands on the flop and check raise a lot on the turn. This should be routine strategy." This is simply because you will be check folding all of your semi-bluff hands (that you bet on the flop), so it is a good way to randomize your strategy and it may on occassion even buy you a free card. Well played Mark. By the book and you maximized your profit! Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand Analysis, Mark, 15. Sep 2003 10:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks shorn As for preflop, i only made the play because of the texture of the players. If i did make two pair or trips, i would surely have been called down in all spots to the river. If the flop had come down with an ace or king (still the 3 flush) i would have slow played the flop (it surely would have been bet) and check raised the turn. I know the hand is garbage, but the implied odds on the hand vs these players is much more than 7:1. As it worked out, i made 28 small bets on the hand, which probably was an overlay (i'm not actually sure). Also, i can envision making that many bets on a few different hands as wall as the flush. Thanks though, i appreciate your comments. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand Analysis, MozMan, 15. Sep 2003 19:58 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hey Mark- I may not have called the pre-flop raise on this, but given your read on the table, I will give you that call as ok. I too have made questionable calls like that when I knew the raiser to be very likely to be overplaying something that was not better than what I had. Once the flop came though, there is no better way to play it than the way you did. You should not get fancy in LL games, play your hands straight-forward. Bet, bet and bet some more when you have a good hand. Slow-playing and fancy play is seldom good in LL unless you have a monster (big full, quads or bigger). -Moz "It's not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right; it's that I have so much confidence in non-scientists being wrong." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand Analysis, Mark, 15. Sep 2003 21:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > Hey Mark- > > I may not have called the pre-flop raise on this, but given your read on the table, > I will give you that call as ok. I too have made questionable calls like that when I > knew the raiser to be very likely to be overplaying something that was not better > than what I had. Hi MozMan I was not expecting to turn the focus of this post to preflop play, but since you and shorn both brought it up (and i do respect your opinions), i want to defend it. I have been reading alot of books (8 new ones to my library) lately and really improving my game, especially reading opponent's hands. I'm getting quite good at it, as well as playing against my opponents, and not necessarily my cards. About 2 weeks ago someone posted about a hand and we all blasted a poster for playing a garbage hand while Roy Cooke stood up for the poster saying his hand is playable in certain situations. I then made some sarcastic remark to Roy about the hand but he never responded. I'm now sorry i did, because i've started playing online again (and reread his book) and really understand what he was saying. I can now make an argument for playing ANY and EVERY hand against SOME opponents. I never thought it was possible until now, but against certain opponents, namely loose passive calling stations or tight passive ABC players, i've been playing any hand profitably. So, back to the Q5suited. I expect that preflop, i've probably got the worst hand. I believe that my reduced price to enter the pot and the fact that i can outplay (at least 2 of my opponents, the opener was pretty aggresive and harder to read) changes the value of the hand. Now along with the 2 reasons above, i also know that at least the 2 loose passive players (and maybe the opener) will call most hands to the river. This was really the deciding factor for me. It the passsive players were not calling stations, i would have folded. But because they were calling stations, i figured on having very good implied odds on the few times i do hit a hand. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand Analysis, MozMan, 15. Sep 2003 21:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Mark- I agree. That's why I said I would give you the call; because you had the read and I didn't, and I know that in certain, specific situations I would make that call myself. I only mentioned it because the call is actually the exception, not the norm. Based on your post, I really thought you probably had enough valid reasons to make that call; I just didn't want to make it seem like I thought it was perfectly normal and should be made in all situations. I hope you didn't take it as chastising; I really didn't mean it that way. Bottom line, you had a good read and that's not something I can argue. :) -Moz "It's not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right; it's that I have so much confidence in non-scientists being wrong." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand Analysis, Schuster, 16. Sep 2003 21:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > I never thought it was possible until now, but against certain opponents, namely loose > passive calling stations or tight passive ABC players, i've been playing any hand > profitably. Be careful. I suggest you read "The Different Stages in a Player's Life" by Ray Zee. It can be found on the 2+2 site under the essays section, here's a quick link: http://www.twoplustwo.com/zee2.html Every hand is not profitable. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand Analysis, Mark, 17. Sep 2003 08:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi Lee I started playing low limits online again ($1-2 to $5-10) I only play the $1-2 games when shorthanded and agaisnt opponents i can run over to make it worth while. But i've found players who are so timit and easy to read where i can play any and every hand profitably, this includes 7-2 off. I know i'm not a great player, but i look for games where i'm a huge favorite. However, i will read the essay Thanks Mark > Be careful. I suggest you read "The Different Stages in a Player's Life" by Ray Zee. It can > be found on the 2+2 site under the essays section, here's a quick link: > http://www.twoplustwo.com/zee2.html > > Every hand is not profitable. > > Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand Analysis, 4 POKER, 15. Sep 2003 23:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi Mark, Given that you had such good reads on these players, I think the call you chose to make preflop was justified, and you were getting 7-1 on your money. You said that when you flopped the flush that, this particular situation would be 10% of the times that the EP aggresor would *not* bet the flop, so you chose to lead at it yourself by not allowing for a free card to happen.......But that would mean that there would be a 90% chance that he *would* have bet it, so you wouldn't have to worry about the possibilty of the flop going around for a check. So I'm not sure why you chose to lead at it if that was 'indeed your reasoning for doing so'. More than likely, you will not be giving up a free card there, because 90% is worth the risk of checking it; whether you were planning on check-raising it somewhere during the hand, or just allowing yourself to check first *knowing* that the EP would most likely bet it for you. (I 'like' your lead out bet there, I just didn't (quite) understand why you felt that the EP player would check it). (just some thoughts here). Now.....like you said......both MP players were complete calling stations and would call if they only had overcards;......another good reason for betting it straight out; thus check-raising it would not be correct (as profitable) because you also said that they were passive, and 'sometimes', passive players fear a check-raise too much and you'll wind up losing them on the flop. That's something that you wouldn't want to happen. Even though you didn't hold the nuts there.....I would take my chances and would welcome the two MP guys to be in there as well by just playing it straight-foward like you chose to do. So all that said....... I like your lead out bet on the flop because that will seem more likely that you don't have the flush, when in all actuality.....you do! That now makes your play there to be very deceptive even though it was straight-foward! (Good play IMO). (The Turn): I like the way you put thought into going for the check-raise on the turn by now showing weakness (and perhaps fear) thinking that it is very possible that one of them has an Ace in their hand and will call any bet that is made there; and they also may think that you may even fold now, which would really increase their chances of winning the pot even more! ......So, Now they have no idea what your holding and IMO, you couldn't have played it any better than the way you did; *especially* knowing how weak both MP players were and would call all the way to the river with so much as just overcards or a pair even seeing the possible flush that was out there on the flop. You also had someone who was overly aggresive and loose, which would 'also' keep him in there as well! When you can read your opponents *that* well, and play your 'own' hands really well, (including, knowing when folding is in order,too )....you can play some of those hands from your blinds that may not be really strong starters (but worth a call) 'because' of those factors, AND....you can really maximize on your winning hands, and indeed you did just that. Well played!! 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand Analysis, Mark, 16. Sep 2003 10:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi 4 poker Thanks for the comments, but just to help clarify on the flop... > You said that when you flopped the flush that, this particular situation would be > 10% of the times that the EP aggresor would *not* bet the flop, so you chose to lead > at it yourself by not allowing for a free card to happen.......But that would mean > that there would be a 90% chance that he *would* have bet it, so you wouldn't have to > worry about the possibilty of the flop going around for a check. I figured that the EP aggressor would follow up on the flop with a bet about 90% of the time, but that this particular flop would probably slow him down. So i don't think there is a 90% chance he will be this particular flop, its probably much lower, like 25%. (does that make sense?) >So I'm not sure why > you chose to lead at it if that was 'indeed your reasoning for doing so'. I'm not really sure either, i didn't have time to really think about it and went with my gut, which was telling me not to allow a free card. More than > likely, you will not be giving up a free card there, because 90% is worth the risk of > checking it; Again, i don't think it is 90% for this particular flop, ( for 90% of the possible flops i think it is certain he will bet, but not on this one). >whether you were planning on check-raising it somewhere during the >hand, > or just allowing yourself to check first *knowing* that the EP would most likely bet > it for you. I didn't really have the hand played out in my mind. I didn't know what i was going to do after the bet. >(I 'like' your lead out bet there, I just didn't (quite) understand why > you felt that the EP player would check it). (just some thoughts here). I think i explained this last one above. I just thought that this was one of the flops he might slow down on. The more i think about it, the more this reasoning looks wrong, but that is what i thought at the time. (make sense?) Anyway, i wasn't really sure what i should be doing on this flop at the time. I like my leading the flop (now), but i was wondering if there was a better way to play it (at the time). Looking back on the way the hand played out, i made the most i could have out of it, but was i right at the time? I'm starting to think so) Mark | ||
| 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 |
|