Party $400NL hand what to do?

LaPalla

Any thoughts on how you might play hand and your reasoning?

***** Hand History for Game 4295745000 *****
$400 NL Texas Hold'em - Wednesday, May 17, 20:20:31 ET 2006
Table Card Quest (No DP) (Real Money)
Seat 6 is the button
Total number of players : 6
Seat 1: tallie777 ( $192 )
Seat 3: LazyBear1 ( $741.99 )
Seat 4: Galewski ( $225.71 )
Seat 5: HERO ( $897.42 )
Seat 6: Wumph ( $394 )
Seat 2: VILLAIN ( $447 )

tallie777 posts small blind [$2].
VILLAIN posts big blind [$4].

** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to HERO [ As Td ]
LazyBear1 folds.
Galewski calls [$4].
HERO raises [$18].
Wumph folds.
tallie777 folds.
VILLAIN calls [$14].
Galewski calls [$14].
<

---

POT IS $56

---

>

** Dealing Flop ** [ Tc, 4d, 6s ]
VILLAIN bets [$25].
Galewski folds.
HERO calls [$25].
<

---

POT IS $106

---

>

** Dealing Turn ** [ 9s ]
VILLAIN checks.
HERO bets [$60].
VILLAIN raises [$120].
HERO calls [$60].
<

---

POT IS $346

---

>

** Dealing River ** [ Ad ]
VILLAIN is all-In [$284]
What to do??

fuzzbox

Fold the turn, fold the river

Hectorjelly

The only hand you are beating is 9T, much more likely he has a set here. Checking the turn would of been better, but since you bet Id fold to the min raise.

bubbleking

id reraise the flop to see where you were your not beating a lot of hands so id fold and cut my losses.

Cianos

Its a hard call imo. A set is quite likely indeed. One thing is for sure, he isnt afraid of the ace....so all you can really hope for here is that he has two pair. And it does seem quite likely ( 9 T ), and that is why its a hard call on the river. From villains perspective, you easily could have AJ-AK here and were just waiting to hit an overcard...he thinks you have landed your top pair and now he is going to make you pay for it with his two pair. You really should have raised on the flop to get more definition here.

Tricky one

pok3rplaya

Raise the flop to $75. If he calls your raise (or reraises) and bets the turn get out of the hand.

As played fold turn and river.

Hectorjelly

raising the flop is wrong and amaturish play, as has been covered here numerous times.

bubbleking

Hectorjelly wrote:

raising the flop is wrong and amaturish play, as has been covered here numerous times.

so is calling a reraise on the turn

Hectorjelly

bubbleking wrote:

so is calling a reraise on the turn

so is trying to get all in with AJ at the 1st hand of the wsop, ie I dont see your point

edit and if you agree with me why did you post it in the 1st place

LaPalla

Can I really fold to min-raise on the turn?
Ok I think I know the answer is yes so what I'm really saying is I should probably be playing micro-limits 'cause I'm not folding this without a read on the player being tight. Thanks for the advice.

pok3rplaya

Hectorjelly wrote:

raising the flop is wrong and amaturish play, as has been covered here numerous times.

link please? I can't see why.

bubbleking

the point is i dont see why reraising on the flop here is such "amaturish play" in this given situation but calling a reraise is i.e every given situation is different.

Samba

He knows the Ace has helped you yet he's sticking his stack in?

Double Belly Buster 78...im guessing...diamonds!


Your behind here, as fuzz said, turn fold, river fold

LaPalla

The only hand you are beating is 9T, much more likely he has a set here.

Was it that obvious HJ? Dang! :mad:

** Dealing River ** [ Ad ]
VILLAIN is all-In [$284]
HERO calls [$284].
VILLAIN shows [ 4h, 4s ] three of a kind, fours.
HERO shows [ As, Td ] two pairs, aces and tens.
VILLAIN wins $911 from the main pot with three of a kind, fours.

Hectorjelly

fuzzbox explains it best, basically raising the flop will never make you money - it alllows the opponennt to play perfectly. If he can beat AT he isnt folding, and if he has a hand like 9T he will fold. If you are playing a total retard raising here would be fine as you dont mind getting all in, but against any reasnable opponent calling is much better. Note there are no real draws. Everytime you raise a flop like this you are costing yourself money.

bubbleking

Hectorjelly wrote:

fuzzbox explains it best, basically raising the flop will never make you money - it alllows the opponennt to play perfectly.[/QUOTE

i agree with this however it could save you a hell of a lot of money.. say in THIS given situation if you get called or raised after raising the flop there is a good chance you are behind. however if you just call the flop with 2 checks on the turn are you getting away from AT on the river to a pot size bet?

or possibly an all-in?

Cianos

Hectorjelly wrote:

fuzzbox explains it best, basically raising the flop will never make you money - it alllows the opponennt to play perfectly. If he can beat AT he isnt folding, and if he has a hand like 9T he will fold. If you are playing a total retard raising here would be fine as you dont mind getting all in, but against any reasnable opponent calling is much better. Note there are no real draws. Everytime you raise a flop like this you are costing yourself money.

Without reads you have to presume you are playing against the average player - ie, not necessarily awful, but not necessarily good aswell. So in that sense, this;

and if he has a hand like 9T he will fold

doesnt hold. I would be more likely to agree with you if villain put in a bigger bet, but his bet was small in comparison to pot. Many opponents will call down with 9T, JT etc, and these are the kind of hands you want to play for value because most times you will get paid.

Hectorjelly

bubbleking wrote:

i agree with this however it could save you a hell of a lot of money.. say in THIS given situation if you get called or raised after raising the flop there is a good chance you are behind. however if you just call the flop with 2 checks on the turn are you getting away from AT on the river to a pot size bet?

No you'd call and lose, but at least you wouldnt lose your entire stack.

fuzzbox

bubbleking wrote:

Hectorjelly wrote:

fuzzbox explains it best, basically raising the flop will never make you money - it alllows the opponennt to play perfectly.[/QUOTE

i agree with this however it could save you a hell of a lot of money.. say in THIS given situation if you get called or raised after raising the flop there is a good chance you are behind. however if you just call the flop with 2 checks on the turn are you getting away from AT on the river to a pot size bet?

or possibly an all-in?

How can it save you money?

Please explain that to me.

bubbleking

Hectorjelly wrote:

No you'd call and lose, but at least you wouldnt lose your entire stack.

what if he went all in? the point im making is that it is not always "amaturish" to raise the flop.

Hectorjelly

Cianos wrote:

Without reads you have to presume you are playing against the average player - ie, not necessarily awful, but not necessarily good aswell. So in that sense, this;



doesnt hold. I would be more likely to agree with you if villain put in a bigger bet, but his bet was small in comparison to pot. Many opponents will call down with 9T, JT etc, and these are the kind of hands you want to play for value because most times you will get paid.

This doesnt make any sense. You said before that you should raise the flop to define your hand. So if your playing with someone who will call with 9T and 44 in what way does that define his hand? So in fact whet your saying is that if you flop top pair ace kicker you are trying to get your stack in the middle asap

fuzzbox

Cianos wrote:

Without reads you have to presume you are playing against the average player - ie, not necessarily awful, but not necessarily good aswell. So in that sense, this;

doesnt hold. I would be more likely to agree with you if villain put in a bigger bet, but his bet was small in comparison to pot. Many opponents will call down with 9T, JT etc, and these are the kind of hands you want to play for value because most times you will get paid.

Villains who call raise oop with 9T/JT, and lead half pot to the flop, but are then happy to call a raise, and then check/call turn and river probably for there stack ... are NOT average players at 2/4. They are BAD players.

pok3rplaya

Hectorjelly wrote:

fuzzbox explains it best, basically raising the flop will never make you money - it alllows the opponennt to play perfectly. If he can beat AT he isnt folding, and if he has a hand like 9T he will fold. If you are playing a total retard raising here would be fine as you dont mind getting all in, but against any reasnable opponent calling is much better. Note there are no real draws. Everytime you raise a flop like this you are costing yourself money.

I see what you're saying. I guess it depends on your idea of average opponent.

bubbleking

fuzzbox wrote:

bubbleking wrote:

How can it save you money?

Please explain that to me.

(1)he calls your reraise alarm bells should go off you fold to his next bet.
(2)play it like HJ suggests you save money until the river he makes an all-in do you really get away from AT the way he has played this hand?

result of 1 you lose your reraise.
result of 2 you get stacked.

fuzzbox

bubbleking wrote:

fuzzbox wrote:

(1)he calls your reraise alarm bells should go off you fold to his next bet.
(2)play it like HJ suggests you save money until the river he makes an all-in do you really get away from AT the way he has played this hand?

result of 1 you lose your reraise.
result of 2 you get stacked.

You are missing the point. The objective is to make the most money Vs his range of hands. You describe raising ... and if he calls then you shutdown completely (do you even put any more money in?). Thus ........ and this is important ... you are BLUFFING.

You are making a bet, but you want your opponent to fold, because, you believe, that if he calls, that he has a better hand than you.

But your hand is better than a bluff. Thus, you turn your TPTK into a bluff, which is bad for business.

You lose value from the 9T/JTs of this world, and you still give better hands a bit of a payoff.

Cianos

Hectorjelly wrote:

So in fact whet your saying is that if you flop top pair ace kicker you are trying to get your stack in the middle asap

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's not necessarily bad play to give away your hand early, because many players will not let go of a weaker hand...and for the added benefit of definition. I would be folding a re-raise on flop and would limit my investment in the hand with only tptk if I am getting action...which admittedly contradicts what I said previous about getting value for the hand. But I see it as a cautious extraction of value, depending on villain of course.

fuzzbox

Cianos wrote:

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's not necessarily bad play to give away your hand early, because many players will not let go of a weaker hand...and for the added benefit of definition. I would be folding a re-raise on flop and would limit my investment in the hand with only tptk if I am getting action...which admittedly contradicts what I said previous about getting value for the hand. But I see it as a cautious extraction of value, depending on villain of course.

Its not very cautious to raise.

Hectorjelly

bubbleking wrote:

fuzzbox wrote:

(1)he calls your reraise alarm bells should go off you fold to his next bet.
(2)play it like HJ suggests you save money until the river he makes an all-in do you really get away from AT the way he has played this hand?

result of 1 you lose your reraise.
result of 2 you get stacked.

the pot will be about 100 on the river, so its likely his bet will only be 75 or so.


This thread should be a sticky

Hectorjelly

Cianos wrote:

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's not necessarily bad play to give away your hand early, because many players will not let go of a weaker hand...and for the added benefit of definition. I would be folding a re-raise on flop and would limit my investment in the hand with only tptk if I am getting action...which admittedly contradicts what I said previous about getting value for the hand. But I see it as a cautious extraction of value, depending on villain of course.

With a hand like this you want to exercise something called pot control, the fact that he is leading in the 1st place should set alarm bells off. If you raise the flop it means the only way to get to a showdown is if your both all in. If your happy to get all in with this hand than by all means fire ahead. This isnt a cautious extraction, its playing the hand like a tournament player.

Cianos

Hectorjelly wrote:

With a hand like this you want to exercise something called pot control, the fact that he is leading in the 1st place should set alarm bells off. If you raise the flop it means the only way to get to a showdown is if your both all in. If your happy to get all in with this hand than by all means fire ahead. This isnt a cautious extraction, its playing the hand like a tournament player.

Every time you flop this kind of tptk, it doesnt mean you have to play uber-cautiously even if he leads. Again, plenty of players will call you down with trash. I do understand that you are then opening yourself up to players who have a set, but I dont think the average player should be given that amount of credit everytime he leads into you. Does raising allow him to play perfectly? Yes. Does villain always play perfectly when given the opportunity? No.

If you raise the flop it means the only way to get to a showdown is if your both all in.

There can be a happy medium.

HJ and Fuzz, I definately see your point and I agree with you very much. At a lot of tables though there will be guys happily calling you down with K10, J10 etc. If I had any indication that villain was worthy of any respect I would not be playing in the same way.

fuzzbox

Cianos, you take a line, that gives villain an opportunity to play perfectly ... and you hope that he doesnt take that opportunity?

And you think that this is good?

Cianos

fuzzbox wrote:

Cianos, you take a line, that gives villain an opportunity to play perfectly ... and you hope that he doesnt take that opportunity?

And you think that this is good?

I guess what we are fundamentally disagreeing on is the quality of "average" player. Would you agree?

fuzzbox

Cianos wrote:

I guess what we are fundamentally disagreeing on is the quality of "average" player. Would you agree?

Nope.
You need to play better than the average player, not worse.

Understanding what you are doing, and why is very important. Raising TPTK ... and hoping that you are playing against a donkey who is happy to call a raise with TPworseK, is silly and more to the point, expensive.

Raising with TPTK but shutting down if you get called is just turning it into 72o.

Cianos

Agreed. But seeing as though many players wont back down from tpworsek, that is why Im saying it is not always a bad play.

Raising with TPTK but shutting down if you get called is just turning it into 72o

I never said I would shut down if I got called. Of course it would be -EV play if I was going to shut down if I got called. And I would also not be rushing to get my stack all in.

fuzzbox

Cianos wrote:

Agreed. But seeing as though many players wont back down from tpworsek, that is why Im saying it is not always a bad play.



I never said I would shut down if I got called. Of course it would be -EV play if I was going to shut down if I got called. And I would also not be rushing to get my stack all in.

You need evidence of donkery from villain before you go for your guns with TPTK ... not the other way around.

So, in your scenario ... pot is 56, villain makes it 25 ... you raise (how much? ... say 100 to play? (about pot?)). Villain ... calls. Pot 200 on the turn.

Turn is a blank 2

Action A -
Villain leads for 150 ... your move?

Action B -
Villain leads for 100 ... your move?

Action C -
Villain checks ... your move?

Pot is 200, you have 300 left.

How difficult is it to get to the river without getting all your money in now?
(given that you are not shutting down ... like you said above, and given that you are also "not rushing to get your stack in").

cooker3

Hectorjelly wrote:

bubbleking wrote:

the pot will be about 100 on the river, so its likely his bet will only be 75 or so.


This thread should be a sticky

I would agree with this, this thread has shown to me a big weakness in my game!

bubbleking

cooker3 wrote:

Hectorjelly wrote:

I would agree with this, this thread has shown to me a big weakness in my game!

you said it roll on "the why not to raise on the flop sticky"

Cianos

fuzzbox wrote:

You need evidence of donkery from villain before you go for your guns with TPTK ... not the other way around.

So, in your scenario ... pot is 56, villain makes it 25 ... you raise (how much? ... say 100 to play? (about pot?)). Villain ... calls. Pot 200 on the turn.

Turn is a blank 2

Action A -
Villain leads for 150 ... your move?

Action B -
Villain leads for 100 ... your move?

Action C -
Villain checks ... your move?

Pot is 200, you have 300 left.

How difficult is it to get to the river without getting all your money in now?
(given that you are not shutting down ... like you said above, and given that you are also "not rushing to get your stack in").

Yes I would need evidence of villain being a somewhat loose player. This is why I referred to the fundamental disagreement coming down to the state of the "average" player...whether we give villain respect by default, or not. You are giving him more respect than I am. I would actually now agree that villain should be given a little more respect by default than I have been giving thus far. It is definately a part of my game that needs examining especially since I have moved to a site where there are a lot more solid players than I am used to. To answer your questions...

Firstly I would more likely raise it to 75 than 100.

Action A -
Villain leads for 150 ... your move?

I can only assume that I am behind now and would fold. Only a small percentage of players would make this kind of a bet with a hand thats worse than mine.

Action B -
Villain leads for 100 ... your move?

Same as A

Action C -
Villain checks ... your move?

Bet around $100. If villain raises, I have been caught. If he calls, I am quite sure he has a worse hand than me but I am still going to be careful on the river.

Again, this is my standard play against players that I know to be typical loose/cant let go players.

ianmc38

2 quick things:

1. Does position affect our strategy here?
2. Are we ever wary of giving a freecard to a continuation bet from KQs or something similar?

Cianos

Hectorjelly wrote:

the pot will be about 100 on the river

Am I missin something? What about turn bets? Are you saying if villain bets 25 on flop, and checks the turn? This doesnt happen very often.

bubbleking

ianmc38 wrote:

2 quick things:

1. Does position affect our strategy here?
2. Are we ever wary of giving a freecard to a continuation bet from KQs or something similar?

its not a continuation bet the villain called a pre flop raise and then fired $25 at the pot on the flop

ianmc38

Ah yes. So twas. Didnt have the chance to read properly. Up to my wee manbreasts here.

fuzzbox

ianmc38 wrote:

2 quick things:

1. Does position affect our strategy here?
2. Are we ever wary of giving a freecard to a continuation bet from KQs or something similar?

1. Well we have position, which is nice. And it makes the hand easier.
2. Do you often find KQs leading into a field on a T-high rainbow board from the blinds? And ... its not free - he has paid half pot for it !! We dont have to blindly call him down on every street just because we call the flop.

Hectorjelly

Cianos wrote:

Am I missin something? What about turn bets? Are you saying if villain bets 25 on flop, and checks the turn? This doesnt happen very often.

It happens very often when a set wants to stack someone, and it happened both in the hand we are discussing and in a example hand by bubbleking

ianmc38

1. I meant does optimum strategy change when we're oop? Is leading, check-call, check-raise or better when oop?
2. Obviously it'd be rare to find someone betting a pile of poo like that from the blinds. AKs may fire bets here sometimes, depending on the villain.

Cianos

Hectorjelly wrote:

It happens very often when a set wants to stack someone, and it happened both in the hand we are discussing and in a example hand by bubbleking

But if we are playing to win the hand then we are hoping that villain has a worse hand than ours and if he does he is not likely to be giving a free river.

Im basically saying that I would be wary of stating it as gospel because most often you are not getting a check check turn and the pot will be bigger by the river.

brianmc

Cianos wrote:

But if we are playing to win the hand then we are hoping that villain has a worse hand than ours and if he does he is not likely to be giving a free river.

Surely you're playing to maximise value from the hand? Not necessarily win it?

Maximising value could mean minimising losses here?

Cianos

brianmc wrote:

Surely you're playing to maximise value from the hand? Not necessarily win it?

Maximising value could mean minimising losses here?

Yeah cheers

ianmc38

Hectorjelly wrote:

It happens very often when a set wants to stack someone, and it happened both in the hand we are discussing and in a example hand by bubbleking

I've seen bet-check-bet and bet-check-push happen countless times with sets.

bubbleking

brianmc wrote:

Maximising value could mean minimising losses here?

that is my reasoning on reraising on the flop in this kind of situation.

fuzzbox

ianmc38 wrote:

1. I meant does optimum strategy change when we're oop? Is leading, check-call, check-raise or better when oop?
2. Obviously it'd be rare to find someone betting a pile of poo like that from the blinds. AKs may fire bets here sometimes, depending on the villain.

1. Obviously if we are first to act, we have a different set of problems. This is why acting first is less fun than acting last.

2. And do you have any qualms at all about letting AK see a turn card for the price he has set?