hand from Jackpot €50, low content.

ditpoker

blinds are 100/200 playing 7 handed as far as i know.

mid position, 6k
myself, sb, 10k
bb 6k

mid position is weak tight, limps alot, and has slowly dwindled to 3k but got a nice double up from the table loon (i think).
I've been tight enough, raising in position a few times and have been passive enough on flops.
bb is an uber-rock and doesnt realy play any part in this hand!

mid position limps, i complete from the sb with Q4 suited, and bb checks. pot 600. i dont really like my limp here because i dont think either of these lads are the types to pay me off if i hit my very specific flop

flop QJQ rainbow. i throw out the 300 that i have in my hand doing silly chip tricks with, so betting half the pot. bb obliges and folds. mid position min raises me to 600. now what? and why? and what is our plan for later streets? what do we have our villain on?

the way i played it i made a reluctant call on the flop and the turn was a 9 completing the rainbow, so we now have QJQ,9. what do we do and why? i checked, villain bets 1000 into the 1200 pot and i call it.

pot now 3200 and the river brings an ace. so we are now looking at QJQ,9,A. once again, i check it and villain bets 2000... we???

i'll post the results later and my thinking and why i played it the way i did. based on information provided, any comments?

Lazare

I'd either raise to 800 or fold preflop, completing is bad. A minraise from a weak tighty there is almost always a Q, but I'm calling it. I think you have to check fold turn though.

Mr.Plough

i call the flop and fold the turn.

limping there makes me cry

Ace2007

i probably would have reraised on the flop to about 2k, as it is, u really have no idea where u are... as it happened unless the turn is a 4,Q or J - you really are in trouble.checkin the turn is fine, not sure about calling his bet of 1K, you've got to figure that he has either KQ,Q10,Q9, highly unlikly he has AQ - probably would have raised preflop(unless he's like me). could he have K10?

The fact that you did call the turn bet- by the time the river came - imo at best you splitting the pot, so i'd probably fold(showing the Q).

btw put ur roll on Kilkenny to win - and then u can play in the red cow....

just saw the comments from lazare and plough - i agree with the folding on the turn but is ur reason because ur kicker is a 4 - or because the turn been a 9?

P.S. just completing the blind was a bad idea but i decided not to bother sayin anything cause u probably know that now....

Captain Tom

raise flop and get it in.

phantom_lord

Ace2007 wrote:

i probably would have reraised on the flop to about 2k, as it is, u really have no idea where u are...

stop sayin this in every post!

Ace2007

phantom_lord wrote:

stop sayin this in every post!

stop saying what?

If you flat call - u have not idea where u stand in the hand, what do you think he should do shane?

BigCityBanker

ditpoker wrote:

mid position is weak tight, limps alot, and has slowly dwindled to 3k but got a nice double up from the table loon (i think).

this is clearly a "I was actually the guy in MP" post by Jeff.

Lazare

Captain Tom wrote:

raise flop and get it in.

You'd risk 5k to win 1500 after a weak tighty min raises? He very rarely minraises without a Q imo, and the times he does with a hand we beat, he'll usually check behind on the turn after we call. I don't see the point to getting it in on the flop at all.

ditpoker

ace2007, raise 2k into the pot of 600, or reraise to 2k when he makes it 600? i'm guessing the latter? my reason for not doing this is because I only get action from a hand that beats me, the raise wouldn't be doing much but taking 600 with a hand that has him crushed, or donating 2k to a hand that has me crushed. i suppose this above bit could also be used as reply to captain tom. surely if i get it in here effectively in a 12k pot, im either gonna lose value against a hand i beat or am destroyed by hand that im drawing near dead to.

i think the big error i made in the hand is on the flop. i get so caught up in the fact that i have QQQ that i don't take the time to put him on a hand, which is so foolish and a mistake i like to think i rarely make.

as i said in the original post i really don't like my limp here. i can try and justify it with "sure its only 100 to see a flop and try and win 600" but i realistically there are very few flops that i can hit AND get paid off on.

Ace2007 wrote:

just saw the comments from lazare and plough - i agree with the folding on the turn but is ur reason because ur kicker is a 4 - or because the turn been a 9?

i think this is a good question. why i are we check folding. do we think the 9 helped him, or have we decided he has the Q and therefore probably has us beat. if he has a Q that beats us, or if the 9 helped him is the 1k a value bet, if he has made a straight he knows a 1k bet will make me fold a Jack here?

ditpoker

BigCityBanker wrote:

this is clearly a "I was actually the guy in MP" post by Jeff.

100% honest... i am the sb here! I AM THE SMALL BLIND! I AM THE SMALL BLIND!!!

I
AM
THE
SMALL
BLIND!!!

the old "i was actually the other guy" trick is such a BCB gimmick, you should trade mark it!

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

phantom_lord

Ace2007 wrote:

stop saying what?

If you flat call - u have not idea where u stand in the hand, what do you think he should do shane?

if you're raising it's for value, not to see where u stand. that's such nonsense.

Ace2007

it was the the latter of the two options, when he min raised you. i dont' see that point in calling his min raise if like plough and lazare said that you fold the turn, cause if u put him on a Q - ur calling to split the pot....(at best)

Ace2007

ok shane - i'll try not to it.... but back to the hand- what would you do....

Lazare

ditpoker wrote:

i think this is a good question. why i are we check folding. do we think the 9 helped him, or have we decided he has the Q and therefore probably has us beat. if he has a Q that beats us, or if the 9 helped him is the 1k a value bet, if he has made a straight he knows a 1k bet will make me fold a Jack here?

We're check folding turn because a weak tight player doesn't bet it without being ahead of Q4, he may minraise flop with J10, K10 (which crushes now anyway), KJ or a PP, but he rarely bets the turn after you call the minraise.

Captain Tom

Lazare wrote:

You'd risk 5k to win 1500 after a weak tighty min raises? He very rarely minraises without a Q imo, and the times he does with a hand we beat, he'll usually check behind on the turn after we call. I don't see the point to getting it in on the flop at all.

errr somehow missed that he was weak tight. i certainly wouldnt narrow his range down to only a queen when he minraises though. lots of live players(even if they're weak tight) minraise here with marginal hands as sort of info raises in my experience. im just pretty much against folding this hand after leading the flop in general though cause most live players expect him to slowplay any queen and can play very irrationally in these spots. i dont like the idea of folding such a strong hand vs a weak player with around 30bb effective stacks.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

phantom_lord

sorry, that might become across as a bit harsh!


i don't know. i might fold the turn or call him down.

mdwexford

A-J and K-J are both possible hands that we beat that could be played like this, he doesnt always have a queen here at all imo, i think it was played ok, id call the river

ditpoker

my thinking was, as captain tom said, i dont think he HAS to have a Q to min raise the flop, there are ALOT of hands he can min raise here with that we beat i think, mdwexford mentioned AJ and KJ. my actually quite unhappy with my flop play, i think my actions would be the same but my reasoning was poor, i basically decided i was flat calling, and was going to check any turn card and keep the pot small (i do like pot control i do!) i didnt want to play a big pot with such a strong-yet-vulnerable hand. so i flat call... when he bets the turn i actually decided that the 9 hadnt helped him as i think if he had KT for example he is checking behind me or betting a single 500 chip or something but the 1000 bet just didnt seem like the 9 had improved his hand... so i made the call.

now the A hits the river and we know we are either VERY FUDGED or not. again i go for the more passive pot controlly optiony and check and he bets 2000 into a 3k pot, its 2k to win 5k to me so i make a call that i'm happy to make. no need to lead the river or reraise cos we're only getting action from a hand that has us beat. i make the call and say "queen" and he mucks... looking back on it i'm 99% certain he had AJ or KJ, more like AJ cos the A didnt phase him the way it would have done if he only had KJ, but that said i think he'd have been more likely to raise with AJ preflop and limp with KJ. so i won a decent pot, but still unsure about my play in it

semibluff

ditpoker wrote:

i dont really like my limp here because i dont think either of these lads are the types to pay me off if i hit my very specific flop

. . .

flop QJQ rainbow. i throw out the 300 that i have in my hand

you dont think that they will pay you out in a hand that you are all over them, and yet by betting out what do you suceed in doing? inflating a pot on a drawing board (of sorts) oop. the tight player would have limped with alot of hands that he's call you with here - 88 + KJ K10 AJ and a stronger Q. so betting out is wrong IMO

personally i would like to keep the pot small, or atleast find out were exactly we stand - and i think we do neither by betting out.

Check raising flop would be my line of action, player dependant, and you should find out were you stand. if it is checked around, you know you should be ahead, and just hope that a scary str8 card doesnt arise (the weak tight player would surely give you some idea your behind - he would hardly slow play a monster?!?). if the flop is checked then you can keep the pot small and re-assess on turn/ river and start value betting/check calling depending (this could be on the river if we see action on the turn).

completing the blind is ok, you dont need to win every hand/pot! folding is also ok, as is stealing (but with weak tight you prob wont get tru)

(written without reading any other replies)

hopefully my waffle wasnt too confusing, makes sense in my head!

ditpoker

semibluff wrote:

you dont think that they will pay you out in a hand that you are all over them, and yet by betting out what do you suceed in doing? inflating a pot on a drawing board (of sorts) oop. the tight player would have limped with alot of hands that he's call you with here - 88 + KJ K10 AJ and a stronger Q. so betting out is wrong IMO

personally i would like to keep the pot small, or atleast find out were exactly we stand - and i think we do neither by betting out.

what i meant was that say it came Q44 they cant have a hand that can pay me off, but if i limp with KJ and the flop comes AQT there's lot of hands at this level people will pay you off with.

i like leading for half the pot (i think - as i said i confused myself alot in this hand). it disguises our hand which can work in our favour on later streets. if i have KQ and therefore a good bit more confidence in my kicker is the lead ok, i.e. for hiding hand strength etc.

semibluff wrote:

if the flop is checked then you can keep the pot small and re-assess on turn/ river and start value betting/check calling depending (this could be on the river if we see action on the turn).

when he min raises it allows us to keep it relatively small as is, and i went for the check calling option to maintain the pot control.

semibluff wrote:

completing the blind is ok, you dont need to win every hand/pot! folding is also ok, as is stealing (but with weak tight you prob wont get tru)

true... true... :cool:

semibluff

ditpoker wrote:

i like leading for half the pot (i think - as i said i confused myself alot in this hand). it disguises our hand which can work in our favour on later streets. if i have KQ and therefore a good bit more confidence in my kicker is the lead ok, i.e. for hiding hand strength etc.


QUOTE]

i think youll agree with me when i say, hiding our strength is brilliant thing to do, when we know we are ahead. so yes.

otherwise we could be "the hunter being hunted".

so leading out is well and good if we are more confident of our kicker, but i would take another line considering we arent

also you say that the pot is still reasonably small after the flop. its 1800. the opponent has 4200 left (AFAIR) and even you with the larger stack only have 9200. two pot size pots and he's as good as all in anyways

ditpoker

semibluff wrote:

i think youll agree with me when i say, hiding our strength is brilliant thing to do, when we know we are ahead. so yes.

otherwise we could be "the hunter being hunted".

so leading out is well and good if we are more confident of our kicker, but i would take another line considering we arent

ugh... it upsets me to admit you're probably spot on with that... "oooh look at me... i'm smart!" ... show off. but yea hiding strength works when we know we're good.

Lazare

semibluff wrote:

completing the blind is ok, you dont need to win every hand/pot! folding is also ok, as is stealing (but with weak tight you prob wont get tru)

Donal completing after one limper with Q4 is bad, I personally want to win every pot I commit any chips to. Also a weak tight player is the perfect opponent to squeez.

semibluff

I suppose it depends a bit more on the exact player, but with Q4 and can easily see the hand play out that you raise trying to steal, he flat calls with his sooooooooted ace, mid/small pkt pair and then you dont know were you stand when as expected on most flops you Q4 misses and your OOP

ditpoker

i have to say i'm liking donal's reasons for limping versus raising from the sb.

on a side not and off topic, i've been trying to work out for a while why Lazare being a "dyslexic athiest" is funny... then i saw his location... i might be slow, but i get there!!

pumpkinpints

semibluff wrote:

you dont think that they will pay you out in a hand that you are all over them, and yet by betting out what do you suceed in doing? inflating a pot on a drawing board (of sorts) oop. the tight player would have limped with alot of hands that he's call you with here - 88 + KJ K10 AJ and a stronger Q. so betting out is wrong IMO

personally i would like to keep the pot small, or atleast find out were exactly we stand - and i think we do neither by betting out.

I disagree with some of what you are saying, firstly i agree we should certianly be lookign to keep the pot small. So my reasons for checkign would be that i) someone might stab at it, ii) we disguise the strength of our hand and iii) we control the size of the pot. finding out where we are is NOT one of these. IF we were looking for info then betting > checking, as lots of people would bet the jack but not the queen because slowplaying is great :cool:

Check raising flop would be my line of action, player dependant, and you should find out were you stand.

This is bad imo, as you inflate the pot oop, and you are called when beated and they should fold everything else. it might work as a bluff where someone fold like Q5-8 but thats it.

if it is checked around, you know you should be ahead, and just hope that a scary str8 card doesnt arise (the weak tight player would surely give you some idea your behind - he would hardly slow play a monster?!?). if the flop is checked then you can keep the pot small and re-assess on turn/ river and start value betting/check calling depending (this could be on the river if we see action on the turn).

I would still check any non-4 turn as we gain all the same as we did from the flop check.

completing the blind is ok, you dont need to win every hand/pot! folding is also ok, as is stealing (but with weak tight you prob wont get tru)

why do you want to play pots you dont want to win, this is ridiculous but im sure tounge in cheek!
(written without reading any other replies)

hopefully my waffle wasnt too confusing, makes sense in my head! [/QUOTE]

Captain Tom

i really dont understand why everyone thinks pot control is so important here. we've flopped a huge hand vs a player that will likely pay us off with worse. my immediate concern is getting value for my hand rather than pot control.

Captain Tom

semibluff wrote:

the tight player would have limped with alot of hands that he's call you with here - 88 + KJ K10 AJ and a stronger Q. so betting out is wrong IMO

??? if he calls you will this range of hands then thats a great reason to bet out. how can inflating the pot vs hands we crush not be a good idea?

ditpoker

we have a strong hand, not an brilliant hand. we're vulnerable. on that board is is more likely that a hand that beats us gives us action than a hand that doesnt beat us. yes we extract value from hands like KJ, AJ, TT, but we lose to any Q. There are more hands that we lose to than we beat that will give us action by the river. while you could extract value say 35% of the time by playing it like we have a lock on the hand, 65% of the time we're donating to a hand that crushes us. not controlling this pot i think is a losing play long term. think thats why i posted this hand, cos i think while i won it THIS time, i dont think its the optimum play in the long run.

Captain Tom

ditpoker wrote:

on that board is is more likely that a hand that beats us gives us action than a hand that doesnt beat us. There are more hands that we lose to than we beat that will give us action by the river.

this is certainly true vs good solid players but this is a live tournament vs someone who's clearly a weak player so i dont think it's applicable here.

just to clarify im not saying we should 3/b flop and call a shove as i did origionally. i was referring to semibluffs post which i think had an extremely weak tight tone in relation to the strength of our hand. i think you played the hand well and folding the turn/river would be a losing play.

ditpoker

Captain Tom wrote:

this is certainly true vs good solid players but this is a live tournament vs someone who's clearly a weak player so i dont think it's applicable here.

hmmm.. true. this is still only the third level of the tourney and the guy hadnt been in THAT many hands so i may be basing the information provided about him on later play too.

semibluff

personally i would prefer to check raise and win a 1k pot, increasing my stack to 11k than betting out, and when a scare card comes (as is very likely considering board) not having a clue were we stand.

if we bet out flop, scare card arrives turn, and we check call to river, we are still going to call all his stack. i dont like being in this situation

as for not wanting to win pots i play in . . . I want to win the tournament, not every pot i enter, it is just impossible, and if you try to do so, you will be out pretty soon.
you hold 2h2d - flop AsKsQs with two callers, your first to act. obv you bet the pot pumpkin, youd hardly check fold - sure you want to win every pot your in!!

semibluff

Captain Tom wrote:

this is certainly true vs good solid players but this is a live tournament vs someone who's clearly a weak player so i dont think it's applicable here.
.

so its your view of the player thats makes you change the approach of the hand? wouldnt it be fair to say that we dont know enough about the player, bar a very brief generalisation, and wouldnt it be better to presume he is a good solid (albeit tight) tournament player until we know otherwise for sure?

I agree with jeff in his last few posts feels so weird saying that!

Captain Tom

semibluff wrote:

so its your view of the player thats makes you change the approach of the hand? wouldnt it be fair to say that we dont know enough about the player, bar a very brief generalisation

well DIT stated in the op that villian was weak tight and limped a lot which is a reasonably accurate read.

semibluff wrote:

and wouldnt it be better to presume he is a good solid (albeit tight) tournament player until we know otherwise for sure?

i dont think so. when playing live vs an unknown i just consider them to be around the general live standard until i know better. i certainly wouldnt consider that general standard to be good/solid.

phantom_lord

was that last sentence a typo?

Captain Tom

lol good spot.

edited.