My crippling hand from boards 200 game

cooker3

I know I am a bit late in posting this, I wasn't going to post it until today when I was reading Harrington on Holdem volume 1 and found a hand in chapter 4 which is near mirror of this hand and made me think more about the hand.

I have about 5000 chips and being at table for about half an hour, only played 1 hand where I called pf and folded to flop bet so have been tight at this table. Villian is Michael Frisby and has only been moved to my table and has seen 3 hands so far I think without playing any, I didn't know villian at time and only know name because I seen him on youtube video at fitz with the chief so basically have no reads on him.

Blinds: 150-300 ante: 25

I am in seat 3 and utg+1 and look down at 2 lovely queens so raise it up to 1000
It's folded around(even the chief folded) to villian who is bb in seat 1 who flat calls.

Flop is AT3 I think, it had ace I know that anyway.

He plays with chips for few seconds then checks, I decide that was bit weak so I bet 1800, he grabs chips and raises enough to put me all-in.

So do I call or fold?

Hitman Actual

I was going to say you should have raised a bit more pre-flop, but that's a bit tricky with your stack size, so there's not much more you can do. It's a while since I played against Mick Frisby, but I remember him being fairly solid (and I assume he still is). And I can't see what he pushes with here that you beat. Also, he has to assume you're going to call as you're down to around 2K. Plus, if he doesn't have a decent Ace, he has to be afraid that you have one.

So I think you're behind, but the problem is you're now really short and in push-or-fold mode if you do fold. And you're getting a nice price now for a call, and don't have to be ahead too often for a call to be correct. So, to hell with it, I might just call and be done with it. And head for beer early.

Daithio

I fold this hand. Against Mick Frisbee here you're drawing to two outs, which I don't think you're getting the odds for. I would have checked behind on the flop too.

NickyOD

You don't need to bet so much ont he flop. Checking behind or betting less is probably better since that's what you'd probably do if you actually had an ace.

5starpool

Yep, Mick knows his stuff enough to know not to bet into a shortstack who raised preflop without something. He has a medium A and is willing to risk have the type of hand that you do actually have and not a better A.

cardshark202

cooker3 wrote:

I know I am a bit late in posting this, I wasn't going to post it until today when I was reading Harrington on Holdem volume 1 and found a hand in chapter 4 which is near mirror of this hand and made me think more about the hand.

I have about 5000 chips and being at table for about half an hour, only played 1 hand where I called pf and folded to flop bet so have been tight at this table. Villian is Michael Frisby and has only been moved to my table and has seen 3 hands so far I think without playing any, I didn't know villian at time and only know name because I seen him on youtube video at fitz with the chief so basically have no reads on him.

Blinds: 150-300 ante: 25

I am in seat 3 and utg+1 and look down at 2 lovely queens so raise it up to 1000
It's folded around(even the chief folded) to villian who is bb in seat 1 who flat calls.

Flop is AT3 I think, it had ace I know that anyway.

He plays with chips for few seconds then checks, I decide that was bit weak so I bet 1800, he grabs chips and raises enough to put me all-in.

So do I call or fold?

Easy fold against Mick

phantom_lord

I take it you folded.

Hitman Actual

To the people who obviously know Mick better than me, does he ever do this with, say, a broadway st-draw or a ten? (Given his pre-flop odds for calling, his range could be quite wide, although I agree an ace is most likely). If not, then I agree it's a fold. But if he ever does, then it could turn the call into a +EV move (given that you're getting nearly 4/1 on your call anyway).

But I think being left with a terribly short-stack comes into play here. You have the option of either gambling now to get a stack of 10K, or folding and going into push-or-fold gamble mode. Either way you're going to be gambling. I assume this is the reference to Harrington, but I can't explicitly remember that coming up in the book.

Edit: I also like NickyOD's line of betting less on the flop. 1200 would do, and if you have to fold to a CRAI, that ~3K stack left gives you more folding equity to gain back your chips.

kincsem

Mick Frisby can play. The one time I shared the Fitz €270 end of month (3 way split) it was with Mick.
He was knocked-out at the boards.ie €200 .... his KK v AKo V Q6 spades. Three players all-in before the flop and the Q6 rivered a flush.

When he plays you should have a hand. Respect.

cardshark202

kincsem wrote:

Mick Frisby can play. The one time I shared the Fitz €270 end of month (3 way split) it was with Mick.
He was knocked-out at the boards.ie €200 .... his KK v AKo V Q6 spades. Three players all-in before the flop and the Q6 rivered a flush.

When he plays you should have a hand. Respect.

I think it was Q4 spades. The player who took him out was too good to miss his flush.

5starpool

cardshark202 wrote:

I think it was Q4 spades. The player who took him out was too good to miss his flush.

luckbox

cooker3

phantom_lord wrote:

I take it you folded.

Correct.

I honestly couldn't see how he didn't have an ace in this situation and thought I was chasing 2 outs. I said at the table I had queens and the chief criticised me said I have to get it in occasionally with worst of it :rolleyes:
I thought it was pretty simple fold at time and hearing what people who know Michaels style backs this up further (also in ensuing debate Michael said he had the Ace)

As I said the reason I posted it was because of HoH and in the near replica hand Harrington says to call as I am too short stacked as if I fold, he will not *always* have the ace and if I do win hand then I have a nice stack and can do some damage. I see Lenny agrees with this but does nobody else then?

Looking back I agree with Nicky that I should have betted smaller, it put me in tough predictament.
I am interested in Daithio saying I should have checked behind, why do you think this line is better then betting out?

Bandana boy

cooker3 wrote:

Correct.

I honestly couldn't see how he didn't have an ace in this situation and thought I was chasing 2 outs. I said at the table I had queens and the chief criticised me said I have to get it in occasionally with worst of it :rolleyes:
I thought it was pretty simple fold at time and hearing what people who know Michaels style backs this up further (also in ensuing debate Michael said he had the Ace)

As I said the reason I posted it was because of HoH and in the near replica hand Harrington says to call as I am too short stacked as if I fold, he will not *always* have the ace and if I do win hand then I have a nice stack and can do some damage. I see Lenny agrees with this but does nobody else then?

Looking back I agree with Nicky that I should have betted smaller, it put me in tough predictament.
I am interested in Daithio saying I should have checked behind, why do you think this line is better then betting out?

I have a problem with this logic
you make a bet on the flop which if raised pot commits you/gives you the odds to call
Well then you should just push the flop if your going to bet

MrPillowTalk

cooker3 wrote:

I am interested in Daithio saying I should have checked behind, why do you think this line is better then betting out?

Because betting out makes a worse hand fold and a better hand put you all in.

Check behind and you can control the pot a lot better.

If you are going to bet put 1200 or 1000 in the pot.

Daithio

cooker3 wrote:

I am interested in Daithio saying I should have checked behind, why do you think this line is better then betting out?

Mick's a solid enough player. If he doesn't have the ace your queens are probably good and he'll likely check it down with you. Once he checks the turn you can be pretty certain he doesn't have it, and he might attempt a bluff on the river which you might be able to call if you think you're good. There's no need to bet the flop IMO, you're only getting called if he has you beaten. I'd bet the flop here against an aggressive player who is likely to take it off me on the turn if I don't, but against Mick who I think is solid enough I don't see any need.

EDIT . Also as Eoin says if I'm going to bet it I'd bet alot smaller. No need to make a big bet here.

EDIT again, to say I don't think this hand really applies to Harrington, well actually maybe it does in your case. His logic is based on having absolutely no reads on your opponent, but Mick is pretty much NEVER bluffing here, so you're drawing to two outs. In fact you say you don't know Mick too well, but you must have some idea that he's a good player, and only a bad player would attempt a bluff here IMO, so you can pretty much rule that out as a possibility.

kincsem

cardshark202 wrote:

I think it was Q4 spades. The player who took him out was too good to miss his flush.

A wild guess here. Would you have held one of the three hands at the showdown? :rolleyes:

cooker3

Daithio wrote:

Mick's a solid enough player. If he doesn't have the ace your queens are probably good and he'll likely check it down with you. Once he checks the turn you can be pretty certain he doesn't have it, and he might attempt a bluff on the river which you might be able to call if you think you're good. There's no need to bet the flop IMO, you're only getting called if he has you beaten. I'd bet the flop here against an aggressive player who is likely to take it off me on the turn if I don't, but against Mick who I think is solid enough I don't see any need.

EDIT . Also as Eoin says if I'm going to bet it I'd bet alot smaller. No need to make a big bet here.

EDIT again, to say I don't think this hand really applies to Harrington, well actually maybe it does in your case. His logic is based on having absolutely no reads on your opponent, but Mick is pretty much NEVER bluffing here, so you're drawing to two outs. In fact you say you don't know Mick too well, but you must have some idea that he's a good player, and only a bad player would attempt a bluff here IMO, so you can pretty much rule that out as a possibility.

As I said in original post, that was first time I met Mick and this was his 3rd hand at the table and first he played so I literally had nothing on him.

But the point that has been made about betting the flop smaller or not at all is definately something I have taken on board and in thinking about it was the right way to go about it, ultimately the reason I bet was I usually always bet after a raise, I did it without much thought at all which is clearly not the brightest thing to do and is something I have to work on in future.