No Limit betting question

[Cry Havoc]

I dont understand why youre getting so defensive? Did you not actually comprehend what i posted?

How am I being defensive? I asked you a question about whether or not you should fold with a flush or full house because the unspoken rules state that you should stop betting if someone is tapped.

He asked a betting question and i gave my answer. Furthermore, i specifically said you should bet with a made hand.

Do you mean this as a general rule of practice? Of course you bet with a made hand. Do you play only when you've got a made hand though? This is an actual question.

I dont know why you are acting like i said never bet with an all in in the hand.

How am I acting like that? I'm disputing the notion that his friend is calling him out, when he actually made a pretty solid poker bet.

The best way to play that hand is to check down until you are strong. Pretty simple concept.

It's also just about the easiest player in the world to read. "Oh, Tony is betting this hand, he must have something good. I'll lay down my cards pre-flop so he doesn't get any money."

Does this concept include other people's hands as well? Because when you check holding a pair, and there are at least one or two other people at the table looking for a straight or a flush draw, is your hand somehow going to become stronger? Checking is for people who are ON a draw (or who want people to think they're on a draw), not for people whose hand is only going to get weaker if there are more people in the pot. That's why you don't ever just sit on a pocket pair unless you've flopped a set or a full boat, because even pocket aces aren't that strong against connecting/suited flops. You get a pair early (with a chance to take down the pot), you push people out of the hand EARLY, so they cannot beat you late. Pretty simple concept.

The "checking until I know I have everyone beat" is exactly what makes an average poker player average. There's nothing special about kicking everyone's ass with a set of aces on the flop, or a nut straight flush. It doesn't mean you have skill when you play hands that have a 90%+ chance of winning.

Youre the type of player that thinks poker is mostly about the "moves" you do make rather than the patience in the moves you dont make. Continue losing your money. Im counting on you.

As the OP had stated, he had been checking down and folding for 45 minutes. Had he said, "Well I was just calling/raising bets off left and right and for some reason I kept getting beat!" my at ude toward his play would have been much different. Of COURSE Hold'em is about patience and making confident bets when you know you've got your opponent staring down a set and you're sitting on a high flush. But it's also about nutting up and betting into a pot that you're not sure you've got licked, because you're reading your opponents and you think they're holding rags.

Some of the best plays I've ever made were because I simply decided not to play the hand with the cards I was dealt. So instead of the dealer throwing me a 6-4 off suit, I called in the big and decided that I was REALLY holding A-Q suited, and bet accordingly into a group of weak hands, and won some nice pots from them.

[Canibspur]

How am I being defensive? I asked you a question about whether or not you should fold with a flush or full house because the unspoken rules state that you should stop betting if someone is tapped.



Do you mean this as a general rule of practice? Of course you bet with a made hand. Do you play only when you've got a made hand though? This is an actual question.



How am I acting like that? I'm disputing the notion that his friend is calling him out, when he actually made a pretty solid poker bet.



It's also just about the easiest player in the world to read. "Oh, Tony is betting this hand, he must have something good. I'll lay down my cards pre-flop so he doesn't get any money."

Does this concept include other people's hands as well? Because when you check holding a pair, and there are at least one or two other people at the table looking for a straight or a flush draw, is your hand somehow going to become stronger? Checking is for people who are ON a draw (or who want people to think they're on a draw), not for people whose hand has a better chance of being weaker if there are more people in the pot.

The "checking until I know I have everyone beat" is exactly what makes an average poker player average. There's nothing special about kicking everyone's ass with a set of aces on the flop, or a nut straight flush. It doesn't mean you have skill when you're 99.9% sure you've got the other players beat.



As the OP had stated, he had been checking down and folding for 45 minutes. Had he said, "Well I was just calling/raising bets off left and right and for some reason I kept getting beat!" my at ude toward his play would have been much different. Of COURSE Hold'em is about patience and making confident bets when you know you've got your opponent staring down a set and you're sitting on a high flush. But it's also about nutting up and betting into a pot that you're not sure you've got licked, because you're reading your opponents and you think they're holding rags.

Some of the best plays I've ever made were because I simply decided not to play the hand with the cards I was dealt. So instead of the dealer throwing me a 6-4 off suit, I called in the big and decided that I was REALLY holding A-Q suited, and bet accordingly into a group of weak hands, and won some nice pots from them.

We are only talking about this specific pot he was involved in. Do you only play made hands in general? Cmon man, thats a whole different thread. You are wrong tho by saying this was a solid poker bet, only because of the cir stances tho. Had there been no all in, undoubtedly you play the hand differently. If its a cash game you play it toatally different as well. But in this hand at this tournament it was the wrong play. It was closer to bad than good. Its really not a big deal but it will improve his play.



ON a side note.... you play Poker with Tony too?

[Cry Havoc]

We are only talking about this specific pot he was involved in.

There's no such thing as "one pot" in a tournament game. His play was a function of how he was reading the other players over the past several hours, not a spot-check on his mathematical ability for calculating odds on the fly for winning that hand. He made a judgment call based on intuition, and he was right in doing so.

[Canibspur]

There's no such thing as "one pot" in a tournament game. His play was a function of how he was reading the other players over the past several hours, not a spot-check on his mathematical ability for calculating odds on the fly for winning that hand. He made a judgment call based on intuition, and he was right in doing so.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

If I respected short stack to play his all in legitimately, I see that the easy road is to team up on the guy for cheap.

But that guy was the easiest read at the table. He was all over the place all night long and threw in all his chips more than once. When he hit, it was never b/c he made the right play. And that's how he ended up at the final table and that's how he ended up 1st out at the final table. People that play like that panic when their chips are down and will more often than usual try to buy the blinds, even though they're not rich enough to.

Basically, he had nothing and I knew it. He was the least of my worries and should have been the least of everyone's worries.

I saw a positional chance to stack some chips against some limpers, and I took it. I didn't care about the all-in.

[Cry Havoc]

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Yep. I will continue to play with intuition, and you will continue to win based on mathematical chances rather than skill.

[Cry Havoc]

If I respected short stack to play his all in legitimately, I see that the easy road is to team up on the guy for cheap.

But that guy was the easiest read at the table. He was all over the place all night long and threw in all his chips more than once. When he hit, it was never b/c he made the right play. And that's how he ended up at the final table and that's how he ended up 1st out at the final table. People that play like that panic when their chips are down and will more often than usual try to buy the blinds, even though they're not rich enough to.

Basically, he had nothing and I knew it. He was the least of my worries and should have been the least of everyone's worries.

I saw a positional chance to stack some chips against some limpers, and I took it. I didn't care about the all-in.

Exactly. Lebowski has learned to read his opponents. Sadly, some people think that isn't important in tournaments. More money for us!

[MannyIsGod]

Which is why I hate rules like that in general. Slow rolling makes sense because you're deliberately attempting to piss someone off, and it's poor sportsmanship.

So now you're confused because rather than playing the cards or the players, you have to worry about their motives via some unwritten tourney rule. It's stupid, and it can definitely be taken advantage of.

Hmm, I'm not sure you know what slow rolling is.

[MannyIsGod]

This.

A bet is a bet, and if the other players don't want to partake they can fold. "Oh, but they might not invite you back"...big in deal, you'll always be the n00b that came in and beat them on the first try. HOWEVER, it needs to be said that if they didn't raise issue with you about it and it was only your friend that brought it up - take his advice. But if the others ed, 'em and take their in' money.

If I'm at a game where I think the players are bad I'm doing my best not to piss them off because I want to be invited back.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW I have a response on my laptop typed up for CH that I typed up while I was commuting via train this morning. The wifi went out before I could post it so when I post in a bit it might seem out of context.

[Cry Havoc]

Hmm, I'm not sure you know what slow rolling is.

Man, your eights are really nasty... I wasn't expecting you to have such a good hand.... especially when I've got a FULL HOUSE, SUCKER.

If I'm at a game where I think the players are bad I'm doing my best not to piss them off because I want to be invited back.

Do you want to win? Winning a tournament pisses people off a lot.

[MannyIsGod]

Which is exactly why you make it EXPENSIVE for them to limp in. Your method allows people to have free cards when they are (likely) holding nothing, not even a pair. If they're ALWAYS going to call, they probably won't be sitting at the final table, because you just sit on a good hand and then punish them. Good players are going to turn loose of hands if it's too expensive for them to shoot for a runner runner, or they need one of about 8 cards in the deck on the river.

Middle pair in a four way pot is never a good hand. Thats the most important point you're missing.

I don't understand why you think limpers are so adamant about calling -- that's why they're called limpers! They're trying to check for cheap cards. You push limpers over, not check them to keep them in the pot.

Sure, with a good hand. Once again four handed middle pair is not a good hand.

And you sound like you only play a hand when you're 100% positive it's the best at the table. How often does that happen? Once every 40 or 50 hands?

No I don't. In this situation I'm not going to be betting into four passive calling stations because its one of the worst possible plays you can make with a marginal hand.

Again, it's a judgment call. He'd been folding for a solid 45 minutes. The other players at the table are going to respect his hand with a flush/straight draw out on the flop. When he raises, he's representing something tough to the other players -- which is why the limpers will often lay down here.

He raised preflop and got four callers. Sure sounds like they're respecting his hands.

[quote]
Because if they HIT that draw, your set is trash. A straight OR a flush beats a set, you realize this, correct? You let a someone who's just check/calling and hanging around stay in the pot for cheap, suddenly you're sitting across from a hand that's completely got you beat, and you find it really hard to muck it because you were recently top hand on the table.
[quote]

Who said let him hang around for cheap? You should go back and reread my post.

He's bluffing? There's ONE over card on the table, and even if someone hits that with a queen in the pocket, there's a good chance you can make them think they're beat too, with what's on the table. This is why situational, positional play is so important, and the pre-flop betting is the absolute key to the game. From the sound of it, no one was making any strong moves to push other people out of the pot, which means at the worst he's got to beat a pair of ladies, and has several outs to do so, even if the other person calls out his two 10s.

When you bet in an attempt to make someone fold you're effectively bluffing. Why? Because you're not looking to get someone to a showdown and draw value from your bet you're looking to make them fold. This play and mindset are exactly the same whether you hold 23o or A10s with middle pair.

At worst you're behind to a set in which you're drawing nearly dead. A pair of queens is far from the worst possible hand you could be drawing against here. You're behind a straight flush draw - a pair of queens - two pair and sets. You basically beat nothing but a worse middle pair or bottom pair.

One of the biggest mistakes people make is not gauging the range of hands they beat. You're making that mistake here.

2nd high pair with an ace in the pocket, a straight, and a flush draw on the table is a bluff to you? What do you do with the other 8 hours in a poker game you play in where you muck your hand because you aren't dealt pocket aces or kings?

CH, I played poker for five years for a living and the last few years I played about 35% of my hands preflop very aggressively. What you're not understanding is that the number of others in the hand dramatically effects the aggression level you should play at.

Again, it all depends. He called all-in already on the first raise, which means his back was to the wall and he was probably relatively desperate, playing something like J-8 suited or maybe a baby suited connector.

LOL? Your hand range on the AI. Given the information above there's no reason to suspect J-8 or a hand that bad. More often than not he'll have a PP or Ax in this situation.

I wondering if OP can tell us. I'd be shocked if he didn't have at least Kx or Ax here.

Even though he'd been folding for 45 minutes? Manny, I see what you're thinking but you're only playing the cards, not the people. When he raised pre-flop and then on the flop, he was representing either a pair of queens or something even better. Most players who are trying to just hang around are going to fall out when there's a pre-flop raise and then another raise by the same player on the flop, particularly if that player has been playing very tight.

I'm actually very much playing the people. All four of them. And the fact that after all his folding they still all called his raise preflop. A lot of respect he's getting right? All the reason to believe he's going to get it post flop, right?

[MannyIsGod]

Man, your eights are really nasty... I wasn't expecting you to have such a good hand.... especially when I've got a FULL HOUSE, SUCKER.



Do you want to win? Winning a tournament pisses people off a lot.

Winning a tournament in my experience doesn't piss people off. Breaking house rules, however, does. YMMV.

[MannyIsGod]

Yep. I will continue to play with intuition, and you will continue to win based on mathematical chances rather than skill.

There's more than one way to skin a poker cat. There are different play styles with varying levels of situational aggression that will earn similar win rates.

That being said, I've never seen a winning poker player who ignores the math aspect of the game. Never. The most aggressive players who mix things up are often the ones who have the best in depth knowledge on possible ranges and when to make the best out of marginal situations.

Reads are important, but reads are only there to help you narrow the range of possible hands.

[MannyIsGod]

Very simply put, CH. I've never once come across a winning player who advocates playing middle pair against a bunch of passive calling stations in a four handed situation in the manner you have.

[Cry Havoc]

Middle pair in a four way pot is never a good hand. Thats the most important point you're missing.

Objectively speaking, it's a good hand if it beats the other hands.

Sure, with a good hand. Once again four handed middle pair is not a good hand.

It is when everyone else is limping in with a couple of draws on the board.

No I don't. In this situation I'm not going to be betting into four passive calling stations because its one of the worst possible plays you can make with a marginal hand.

They're passively calling because they're waiting to make their own hand. Letting them hang around so they can punish you when they hit their draw is a horrible play.

He raised preflop and got four callers. Sure sounds like they're respecting his hands.

So someone on a good flush or straight draw or with suited connectors is going to lay down their hand just because one guy is raising pre-flop?

Who said let him hang around for cheap? You should go back and reread my post.

How would you have played the hand?

When you bet in an attempt to make someone fold you're effectively bluffing. Why? Because you're not looking to get someone to a showdown and draw value from your bet you're looking to make them fold. This play and mindset are exactly the same whether you hold 23o or A10s with middle pair.

No, it's not a bluff. It's you making a statement that your hand is better than their is presently, and you're going to make it very expensive for them to see the next card. A set of aces raising to a 4 card flush on the turn isn't bluffing.

At worst you're behind to a set in which you're drawing nearly dead. A pair of queens is far from the worst possible hand you could be drawing against here. You're behind a straight flush draw - a pair of queens - two pair and sets. You basically beat nothing but a worse middle pair or bottom pair.

Why would someone with a set be checking against a board that's got both a flush and a straight draw on it? Does that make any sense at all that a player with the best hand on the table would be checking to wait to see if his hand gets beat on the turn/river, rather than attempting to push out people who are trying to see cards for free?

One of the biggest mistakes people make is not gauging the range of hands they beat. You're making that mistake here.

You're not gauging the logic by which they would be betting with said hands. Someone with trips isn't going to look at a board with straight/flush possibilities and say, "Gee, maybe I should check to all these limpers". He's going to push. No one on the table was raising except for the OP.

CH, I played poker for five years for a living and the last few years I played about 35% of my hands preflop very aggressively. What you're not understanding is that the number of others in the hand dramatically effects the aggression level you should play at.


LOL? Your hand range on the AI. Given the information above there's no reason to suspect J-8 or a hand that bad. More often than not he'll have a PP or Ax in this situation.

As the OP has already stated, the SB was weak all night and was playing crazy, so it's likely he was impatient and just calling anything because he went on tilt from being in the short stack and was desperate to make something happen, and was hoping to get lucky.

I wondering if OP can tell us. I'd be shocked if he didn't have at least Kx or Ax here.

I'm actually very much playing the people. All four of them. And the fact that after all his folding they still all called his raise preflop. A lot of respect he's getting right? All the reason to believe he's going to get it post flop, right?

They called a single raise. Why would you stop raising at that point? You're basically saying, "Well, you won, I'm going to stop trying to force you out of the pot and give you a bunch of free cards now to see if you can land that straight or flush and beat me."

Very simply put, CH. I've never once come across a winning player who advocates playing middle pair against a bunch of passive calling stations in a four handed situation in the manner you have.

And I've never seen a winning player who says that you shouldn't vary your playstyle based on the way other people are playing. There are no hard and fast rules for Hold-Em. Do you think Doyle Brunson would ever say, "You know what? 7-4 off suit is a pretty solid hand that you should play in many situations."? No. But have I seen him play -- and win -- with that hand because he checked the table and decided it was worth taking a calculated risk to win a pot? Absolutely.

[MannyIsGod]

You're obviously not going to believe me, so I should just move on but betting middle pair into a four handed pot is a losing bet the vast majority of the time in a No Limit game of any type. I've never seen a winning player advocate a move like this.

[MannyIsGod]

And I've never seen a winning player who says that you shouldn't vary your playstyle based on the way other people are playing. There are no hard and fast rules for Hold-Em. Do you think Doyle Brunson would ever say, "You know what? 7-4 off suit is a pretty solid hand that you should play in many situations."? No. But have I seen him play -- and win -- with that hand because he checked the table and decided it was worth taking a calculated risk to win a pot? Absolutely.

I've never said you should never vary your playstyle. As for no hard and fast rules, you're welcome to believe whatever you'd like. Comparing the a hand played at a hand of professionals with a hand played with a bunch of loose passive players is pretty funny though.

[Cry Havoc]

You're obviously not going to believe me, so I should just move on but betting middle pair into a four handed pot is a losing bet the vast majority of the time in a No Limit game of any type. I've never seen a winning player advocate a move like this.

Have you ever seen a winning player knowingly bluff a superior hand? I have. Raising to a set when you're holding rags is a losing bet the VAST majority of the time too, but you see pros make the other guy muck his trip 7s because there's a busted straight on the board all the time.

[MannyIsGod]

Have you ever seen a winning player knowingly bluff a superior hand? I have. Raising to a set when you're holding rags is a losing bet the VAST majority of the time too, but you see pros make the other guy muck his trip 7s because there's a busted straight on the board all the time.

[MannyIsGod]

What percentage of a winning players gains come from bluffs, CH? Care to give a guess?

[Cry Havoc]

You're obviously not going to believe me, so I should just move on but betting middle pair into a four handed pot is a losing bet the vast majority of the time in a No Limit game of any type. I've never seen a winning player advocate a move like this.

And perhaps 90% of the time I would agree with you. This is an exception to that idea because of the situation presented by the OP. The SB was weak, and all the players on the table seemed like they were waiting to pair up or hit a straight or a flush.

[Cry Havoc]

What percentage of a winning players gains come from bluffs, CH? Care to give a guess?

It's not about the % of money you make from a bluff. It's about the order and the reputation you establish at the table for yourself.

Losing a bluff (which wasn't even really a bluff in this situation considering no one was betting into the pot) every so often is a lot better than never losing a bluff because you never take a shot at a winnable pot.

It also stands to reason that the OP was making a value bet. Since the pot was so large from several players being in it, even taking a stab at it and losing was worth the risk because the payoff was big.

[MannyIsGod]

And perhaps 90% of the time I would agree with you. This is an exception to that idea because of the situation presented by the OP. The SB was weak, and all the players on the table seemed like they were waiting to pair up or hit a straight or a flush.

Oh man. I've talked with hundreds of pros in my time and I don't think any of them ever exhibited the hand reading skills necessary for that kind of a judgment in a four handed situation.

[Cry Havoc]

Oh man. I've talked with hundreds of pros in my time and I don't think any of them ever exhibited the hand reading skills necessary for that kind of a judgment in a four handed situation.

You've sat a table for hours with other players, and you can't make four reads based on the way they are betting and the cards that are out on the board?

You still haven't answered my other question: Why would someone with top pair or a set be checking/calling to other players who are on a straight or a flush draw? He WON the hand with a set, so that means at MOST there was a high pair on the board (maybe two pair), in which case he read the hand exactly as he predicted.