OT: Hold 'Em - Play along in this hand

[primelord]

Here are a few posts with an explination of the play. I apologize if it seems a bit disjointed since it is throughout a thread.

On the internet? Of course they do. Heck, I had to beg people on this forum to check the turn with a draw in a thread the other day.

To address other questions, I definitely call the river. However, it's really not that important since all but the strongest players will be checking behind unless they have a monster, which they don't, or they'd have 3-bet the turn.

I want to address this thread more, because I really think checkraising the turn here is important, but frankly, I'm too tired to do it justice. Basically, you have a great shot of having the lead. You can't allow the 3rd player with either a weak made hand or 6 outs to call. Even if you are behind to a pair, you have 6 outs against the CO a huge % of the time.

The pot size dictates that you can't fold, so investing this incremental bet to maximize your chances of winning the pot is absolutely essential. You can fold a better hand if you are behind, you could easily have the best hand, but any non-dominated hand has at least 6 outs to beat you. The CO is more likely than not to be drawing. This is an easy investment of an incremental bet that simply must be made. Just calling here in an 8.5BB pot is terrible.

I hope to expound some more, but I wanted to get something out here for discussion because this is a critical type of play. There is discussion on this type of concept in TOP where you are less than 50% sure you have the best hand, but raising still becomes the correct play because of the chances to get it headsup and the size of the pot.

[primelord]

Another reply...

No, this isn't some random escalation of hostilities.

Again:

1. It is clearly correct to call the turn in this 8.5BB pot.
2. Ultra conservatively I'd guess we have at LEAST a 20% chance of being in front of the CO.
3. We have a high chance of folding out the rest of the field since it is just a single opponent who has shown no strength at all.

These factors make throwing 2 bets into the pot instead of 1 the absolutely correct play. Frankly, I'd put our chances of being in front of the CO at over 40%.

If you really think that CO has a queen, set or two pair more than 4x as often as he has a draw then I don't care if you are playing internet or live, you are playing way too scared. I'm not assuming anyone is playin psychotic at all. I'm assuming that they are playing poker .

[primelord]

And finally this post is from Ed Miller who is writing the Low Limit Hold 'Em book with Sklansky and Malmuth for 2+2.

Clark, do you call a river bet?

You guys seem to think this is the interesting part of the hand. It's not! The interesting part is the play on the turn... which has ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to do with whether you would call a bet on the river.

Who cares if you call a bet on the river? First of all, very few people will actually BET this river. Second of all, it's a big pot and you have a bluff-catcher. Calling really can't be too big a mistake.

I think people on this forum suffer from what David called Tommy Angeloitis. Now I'm not sure the name is fair, but the problem is very real... you guys are hesitant to play marginal hands in spots that are profitable but uncomfortable. Yes, you aren't thrilled that you have unimproved ace-king in a big pot, but that's what you got, and you have to make the best play with it. It seems that some of you don't want to make the correct play because it MIGHT (note caps) leave you with a "tough" river decision.

Who cares! If the guy bets the river... congratulations to him. He might win an extra bet from you. Most players don't play well enough to bet there, and those that do... well, they play goot! But you can't be playing meekly with AK just because uncomfortable things might happen.

(Note that this post is now becoming more general in scope.)

I don't know how many of you read Rolf Slotboom's two part extravaganza on playing AK from the small blind, but he basically barfed Tommy Angeloitis all over the page. He wants to fold AK to a raise from the small blind because (a paraphrase of his article), "What if you miss? Won't that suck? You will have ace-high out of position."

Well yes, sometimes you miss and have ace-high out of position. That is often an unpleasant situation (when your opponent doesn't run in fear on the flop since you 3-bet him from the small blind with AK... which they do like at least a third of the time anyway). But just because something is DIFFICULT or UNCOMFORTABLE does not mean it is UNPROFITABLE. Furthermore, "making the hand easier to play," "finding out where you're at," and "avoiding a tough decision," are VERY RARELY VALID EXCUSES FOR MAKING ANY PLAY IN LIMIT HOLD 'EM. It's nonsense. Stop thinking like this, guys.

Don't miss river bets because, "What if this guy who has never bluff-raised anyone in his life decides to throw that all out the window and pull a world class play on me this hand?" Don't miss KEY turn check-raises because, "What if he bets the river?" Who !@#$ing cares.

That is all.

[primelord]

The entire thread can be found here if you guys are interested in reading the whole thing.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...sb=5&o=14&vc=1

[Radii]

That's very interesting. It also goes against one of the most fundamental rules that I play by at low limits... "don't try anything tricky against players who aren't paying enough attention to see what you're doing"

But it is an interesting way to look at things, and a new way to look at a situation in poker is always worth reading.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Radii

That's very interesting. It also goes against one of the most fundamental rules that I play by at low limits... "don't try anything tricky against players who aren't paying enough attention to see what you're doing"

But it is an interesting way to look at things, and a new way to look at a situation in poker is always worth reading.

See I don't think it is really being all that tricky. The Hero had put Co most likely on a flush draw. Now he figures the EP player must not have a Q because they have shown no strength. However there is a good chance the EP player has something because he continues to call bets. So he may have forced out the better hand with the check raise on the turn.

And since the CO only called the turn check raise he must not have a huge hand so he is very likely to go ahead and check through the river even with a Q. So it's not tricky as much as just isolating the player you have out on a draw.

[MJ4H]

I saw this thread yesterday I think and read it with interest. I learned a lot from that thread. I like the idea of you posting it here. Good choice of material.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

I saw this thread yesterday I think and read it with interest. I learned a lot from that thread. I like the idea of you posting it here. Good choice of material.

2+2 has the occasional good thread surrounded by way too much trash for me to wade through. I find the place pretty annoying on the whole.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

2+2 has the occasional good thread surrounded by way too much trash for me to wade through. I find the place pretty annoying on the whole.

I find the place a goldmine of good advice for my game.