Flopped nuts on tricky board

[ubermonkey1]

Originally Posted by Steve'O

I would have led out with a pot sized bet hoping for any kind or raise behind whereby I would jam the pot. If they both flat called so be it but I think a big pair is likely to raise to find out where he is.

I would never just call against 2 opponents on that board in the situation you find yourself in. Your check raise was good enough to take down the pot and did scream of uber strength so unlikely to get any more action.

i agree
even if you only get a call/callers instead of the raise you really want ,you have built the pot nicely for the turn. if no danger cards show, a overpair will likely call/raise any bet you make because your hand is a bit better hidden.



i also agree with taking the pot down there rather than trying to get value from the turn and river.
with that many possible out cards and two players in the pot nearly half the pack is a potential danger,if any of those cards drop then you dont know where you are.
unless someone bets massively if one of those cards does hit ,you have to call really with 10 outs for your boat/quads and the possability you are already still ahead ,thats a situation i dont want to get into as it can cost you a fair bit.
i dont think its worth hoping for a flush to hit as you hit your boat
with one out on the turn and two outs possible on the river its pretty unlikely that its going to happen ,nice but improbable.so i wouldnt be banking too much on it.

[WASP]

Originally Posted by AlunB

Is poker ever that clear cut black and white that you can say never call here? That was my only point. I don't disagree with you per se.

To me that hits the nail on the head Alun and sometimes threads like this just highlight the fragility of the strategy section.

For a start we only have a fraction of the information here, for me extracting money from a player will go on what has happened on previous plays 10 20 hands before. Maybe a set up based on their routine play or lack of routine play.

I'm sure that if Nade, Rob, Steve'O,yourself and I all sat in the exact same sitation we would have had 3 or 4 different thought processes on how we would want the hand to progress from this point.

To answer your question Nade there is not an optimum play here, your play should be determined by more than just cards, you need to play the players more in cash games and also second guess what you think they think you might be holding . One thing I very rarely do in cash is enter a pot with a call, if you want to get involved in a play regardless of your holding raise it up thus disguising your hand further.


BTW Rob/Alun What constitutes a fish I have always wondered this? Is it just a belitting term for a beginner/improving player? or is it a LAG? or none of the above? I'm really not sure I have been called a fish many a time at the tables, usually after I have just outplayed someone, as I am sure many of us have but I can never work out why and what they mean. Please help me out as this keeps me awake at night.

[robsterling]

Originally Posted by ubermonkey1

i agree
even if you only get a call/callers instead of the raise you really want ,you have built the pot nicely for the turn. if no danger cards show, a overpair will likely call/raise any bet you make because your hand is a bit better hidden.

I don't understand all the deal about your hand being hidden, it does depend how you play I s'pose, but I'm check raising a draw on this kind of board a lot of the time too. Overcards and flush draw I check raise, nut straight draw I might check raise, nut flush draw I will often check raise; hence the ball is in their court whether I have a draw or a genuine hand like the top set Nade has.

However, if you are only the kind of player who check raises with a made hand, that changes things. Hence me stressing earlier why your awareness of your image at the table is important.

As for what a fish constitutes. I tend to regard it as a kind of calling station, ie loose weak. Someone who calls down light but doesn't show aggression much, eg. calls down with flush draw on flop and turn with no odds and fold to small river bet.

[AlunB]

fish (fĭsh)
n., pl. fish or fish·es.

1. Any of numerous poor poker players who consitently misplay their hands:
   1. Players new to the game who don't fully understand what they are doing.
   2. Players of some experience who constantly make bad decisions.
2. A term of abuse applied generally regardless of ability - usually by a player who has just lost a pot.
3. An informal term of endearment between poker players.
4. Informal. A person, especially one considered deficient in something: a poor fish.

That 4th one is actually a dictionary definition of a fish btw.

LAG would be an adjective rather than a noun, so for example a bad LAG would be known as a LAGfish.

[WASP]

Originally Posted by AlunB

1. applied generally regardless of ability - usually by a player who has just lost a pot.
2. An informal term of endearment between poker players.

I'm probably the above fishes then

Thanks Alun the font of all knowledge as always, you might put that chemistry degree to use one day.

[ubermonkey1]

Originally Posted by robsterling

I don't understand all the deal about your hand being hidden, it does depend how you play I s'pose, but I'm check raising a draw on this kind of board a lot of the time too. Overcards and flush draw I check raise, nut straight draw I might check raise, nut flush draw I will often check raise; hence the ball is in their court whether I have a draw or a genuine hand like the top set Nade has.

However, if you are only the kind of player who check raises with a made hand, that changes things. Hence me stressing earlier why your awareness of your image at the table is important.

As for what a fish constitutes. I tend to regard it as a kind of calling station, ie loose weak. Someone who calls down light but doesn't show aggression much, eg. calls down with flush draw on flop and turn with no odds and fold to small river bet.

yeah i could see your point vs one player, but against 2 players its bloody dodgy to check raise with a draw or even a bluff etc.
a lot of the value in the check raise on a draw is that a large percentage of the time the opponent folds ,the rest of the time your winning about a third of the hands they call.
with 2 players its more likely someone will call ,so surely it at least is becoming a -ev move or a 50/50.

i can only think of one situation i would check raise vs multiple opponents and that with the absolute nuts on the flop and good action after me.


i would say that a fish is a player that uses the same strategy over and over ,making it obvious to those around them how to counteract their play or by their actions show absolutely no comprehension of the game


so calling stations are obviously in,easy safe money to be had.
also ultra aggressive players that cant help but over raise pretty much every hand from any position are usually easy to pick off as well,everybody needs aggression but every hand becomes a bit obvious and pretty easy to counteract.
then there's the real simpletons ,calling down with absolutely nothing etc.
if anybody has seen the vid of neville southall playing he fits nicely into this catagory

[Nade]

Originally Posted by WASP

One thing I very rarely do in cash is enter a pot with a call, if you want to get involved in a play regardless of your holding raise it up thus disguising your hand further.


BTW Rob/Alun What constitutes a fish I have always wondered this? Is it just a belitting term for a beginner/improving player? or is it a LAG? or none of the above? I'm really not sure I have been called a fish many a time at the tables, usually after I have just outplayed someone, as I am sure many of us have but I can never work out why and what they mean. Please help me out as this keeps me awake at night.

Firstly, my style is to see flops as cheaply as possible with any pairs below jacks, hoping to flop a disguised set against a couple of opponents so i can get paid.
Also i don't like re-raising pre flop out of position with marginal hands as at this level people who call 1 bet will a re-raise and so it's just building a pot which it's still a toss up as to whether you'll be ahead post flop or not.
Instead i like to keep the pots fairly small pre flop unless i have a premium hand and then re-assess the situation on the flop depending on what it brings, stacks, opponents etc. knowing that i can get away from a hand if necessary even if i hit so for my game calling pre-flop is not a problem.

As for the 'fish' debate I class anyone who chases a lot, plays a lot of marginal hands, overplays top pair without strong kickers, generally as robsterling says - a loose weak player.

[robsterling]

Originally Posted by ubermonkey1

yeah i could see your point vs one player, but against 2 players its bloody dodgy to check raise with a draw or even a bluff etc.
a lot of the value in the check raise on a draw is that a large percentage of the time the opponent folds ,the rest of the time your winning about a third of the hands they call.
with 2 players its more likely someone will call ,so surely it at least is becoming a -ev move or a 50/50.

i can only think of one situation i would check raise vs multiple opponents and that with the absolute nuts on the flop and good action after me.

Against two opponents yes I will check raise a good draw there with good reads on them. If I know one is a "fish" who has a high percentage for calling c-bets, if I know the original raiser c-bets a high percentage of flops and I have a strong draw and a good (as in not too agressive, showed down strong hands, check raised before and showed down strong) image then yes I will.

If you only check raise with the nuts, thats really bad balancing of your ranges and too predictable, an observant opponent who has played a fair bit with you before can easily fold his 2 pair, over pair, etc.

If you have an accurate estimation of your opponents range, your image, your fold equity and your win equity, you can can definitely check raise a draw here. To call it "bloody dodgy" and saying you would only do it with the nuts is akin to saying "I'm playing my cards only", if you are representing the nuts but in fact have a draw with decent win and fold equity this is a good move and also balances your range.

I think I would want to know moer about the opponents than Nade did here, but when I play I generally always have tracker, hud, etc - it's a major advantage when used properly.

[robsterling]

Originally Posted by Nade

Firstly, my style is to see flops as cheaply as possible with any pairs below jacks, hoping to flop a disguised set against a couple of opponents so i can get paid.
Also i don't like re-raising pre flop out of position with marginal hands as at this level people who call 1 bet will a re-raise and so it's just building a pot which it's still a toss up as to whether you'll be ahead post flop or not.
Instead i like to keep the pots fairly small pre flop unless i have a premium hand and then re-assess the situation on the flop depending on what it brings, stacks, opponents etc. knowing that i can get away from a hand if necessary even if i hit so for my game calling pre-flop is not a problem.

As for the 'fish' debate I class anyone who chases a lot, plays a lot of marginal hands, overplays top pair without strong kickers, generally as robsterling says - a loose weak player.

I think your preflop game seems a bit rigid really, you need to be reraising based on your opponents opening range.

Set mining, especially with a pair as big as 99 is not profitable as you will not have good enough implied odds versus a late position raiser to call to hit a set and fold everything else - as they will often just be raising rubbish like J10o for instance and aren't gonna pay you off on the 1 in 8 times you hit.

Having a good aggressive preflop game especially at 6max will make you a lot of money imo.

[WASP]

Originally Posted by Nade

Firstly, my style is to see flops as cheaply as possible with any pairs below jacks, hoping to flop a disguised set against a couple of opponents so i can get paid.
Also i don't like re-raising pre flop out of position with marginal hands as at this level people who call 1 bet will a re-raise and so it's just building a pot which it's still a toss up as to whether you'll be ahead post flop or not.
Instead i like to keep the pots fairly small pre flop unless i have a premium hand and then re-assess the situation on the flop depending on what it brings, stacks, opponents etc. knowing that i can get away from a hand if necessary even if i hit so for my game calling pre-flop is not a problem.

Fair enough I'm not going to tell you how to play your cards thats for you to decide but a few points -

it is not a marginal hand

seeing cheap flops in cash games will cost you dearly the further up the ladder you move, it is a weak play

keeping pots small is more tourney play than cash play, you have to be more aggressive and this helps with tricky decisions in later streets, which was the whole point of this thread

[AlunB]

<) this thread. So much going on.

Brian are you saying never see a cheap flop - such as calling with 22/33 or 5h6h? Or never see a cheap flop with pocket nines?

Rob - what's your view of balancing ranges in SSNL games? Is it really necessary? In other words are you worried about tangling with the good regs or just looking to make money from the 50/5 fish? I'd say it's arguably not that important below $1/$2

Brian/Rob - What stakes do you play at normally and therefore do you think your advice on being very agressive is more suited to those than the smaller stakes games? Again questions rather than answers...

Can it be dangerous to be too agressive in soft small stakes games as the kind of fish are generally loose-passive and will call pretty light both pre and post flop.

Thoughts/Opinions?

[robsterling]

Originally Posted by AlunB

<) this thread. So much going on.

Brian are you saying never see a cheap flop - such as calling with 22/33 or 5h6h? Or never see a cheap flop with pocket nines?

Rob - what's your view of balancing ranges in SSNL games? Is it really necessary? In other words are you worried about tangling with the good regs or just looking to make money from the 50/5 fish? I'd say it's arguably not that important below $1/$2

Brian/Rob - What stakes do you play at normally and therefore do you think your advice on being very agressive is more suited to those than the smaller stakes games? Again questions rather than answers...

Can it be dangerous to be too agressive in soft small stakes games as the kind of fish are generally loose-passive and will call pretty light both pre and post flop.

Thoughts/Opinions?

Balancing ranges isn't that important no, as in general ppl won't have loads of hands on you or won't be observant enough to know your ranges. However, to ONLY check raise with the nuts isn't great really, as you will (a) lose equity with strong draws if you call and check fold a missed turn when you had 33% equity on the flop with a lot of fold equity (b) win less when you hit your draw (c) scare ppl out of the pot when you c/r your nuts and they know you have 'em.

I play 0.50/1.00 as well, and I think an aggressive game works well at this level. I'm not advocating blind aggression, but 99 is a strong hand in 6 max and you give up a lot of equity if you just play to set mine. I avoid cold calling preflop as much as possible personally. However in this case, you were facing an UTG raiser, sometimes it might not be best to 3-bet here - but that's why it is very useful to be aware of ranges.

The question about cheap flops was to Brian, but I'll give my view as well... obviously it's all situationally dependent but of course I will see cheap flops at times, but I'd rather be raising and 3-betting than calling in general - as you gain more information about your opponents hand, you can take the pot down there and then and you have momentum on the flop. You can selectively profit by using a lot 3-betting light at 0.50/1.00 (things like 33, 56s etc as these are easy to play after the flop) and with 99 you are generally just giving up equity by cold calling imo. Open limping is bad for the same reason at 6 max.

I'm not sure, but maybe because Nade has played more full ring set mining is more common there. I started at full ring myself and wouldn't 3 bet 99 much there.

[ubermonkey1]

Originally Posted by robsterling

Against two opponents yes I will check raise a good draw there with good reads on them. If I know one is a "fish" who has a high percentage for calling c-bets, if I know the original raiser c-bets a high percentage of flops and I have a strong draw and a good (as in not too agressive, showed down strong hands, check raised before and showed down strong) image then yes I will.

If you only check raise with the nuts, thats really bad balancing of your ranges and too predictable, an observant opponent who has played a fair bit with you before can easily fold his 2 pair, over pair, etc.

If you have an accurate estimation of your opponents range, your image, your fold equity and your win equity, you can can definitely check raise a draw here. To call it "bloody dodgy" and saying you would only do it with the nuts is akin to saying "I'm playing my cards only", if you are representing the nuts but in fact have a draw with decent win and fold equity this is a good move and also balances your range.

I think I would want to know moer about the opponents than Nade did here, but when I play I generally always have tracker, hud, etc - it's a major advantage when used properly.

sorry i should have been a bit more exact, vs unknowns and with no personal table image as such i wouldn't be doing it
maybe i would if it was a game/players have good info on and my image was not aggressive ,in that situation then i might use it but not often .
but vs 2 unknowns i definately wouldn't be doing it ,like i say the call percentage would more than likely go up past the point of it being cost effective.


i would say that the stakes would effect strategy
the lower down you go the more you have to go back to basics ,as the opposing players are in general less likely to be watching those around them,so trying to outplay people at this level is tricky,so back to basics seems the best strategy.
once you get up a bit further the play gets better and there are less fish and more observant players, now playing the player not the cards becomes a much better way to play ,so a more action style should be more effective.
admittedly a have only got up to the 2/4 level so i cant comment past that ,but i would say below 25c/50c basic abc poker probably works best, then the higher up the stakes you go from there the more moves you can start to pull.

[WASP]

Originally Posted by AlunB

<)

Brian are you saying never see a cheap flop - such as calling with 22/33 or 5h6h? Or never see a cheap flop with pocket nines?

Very rarely see cheap flops at any level, entering the pot with a raise/reraise swings 'the power' in your favour for the rest of the hand or you are asking the question to define your hand more clearly or in this case both.

It is short handed he has a massive hand on the BB with a 3.5 raise and a call, I'd be raising but to around $11 pre flop not post flop. I'd rather take their $7 now than wait to see a tricky board. They are unlikely to reraise with AK AQ most likely to call so you can narrow down their range, if one of them reraises you have probably defined your hand to being behind to a higher pair but in some cases it maybe still worth calling (implied odds) because if you put him on KK/QQ and you flop the 9 then you have his entire stack.

Can you see how entering with a raise gathers you a whole load of information and makes your decisions easier as the hand plays out?

As for levels, you know I am up an down like a tarts knickers but I generally play at levels higher than this but I think this level still requires you to play a more powerful game.

[AlunB]

Yeah I agree with the example, I was more thinking of small pairs such as 22/33. I'd much rather cold call a raise with a small pair especially multi-handed and try to flop good or fold. 77+ I'm probably looking to raise if first in or squeeze if there has been a raise and a call, but that very much depends on the table and my image.

I do think there is a danger in being super-aggro at levels below 100NL as a rule. Above this level you are often dealing with mostly competent players and being more aggro is a good strategy. At the lower levels being more TAG and selectively agressive is better approach in general imo. I'm talking specifically pre-flop here btw. But there are plenty of winning players who disagree.

[WASP]

hmmm yes I still raise with any hand, hardly ever call but can't remember if I did this too much at .50/1 I might give this level a bash for a few days on a new site I have just downloaded and see how I get on

Are you still going to Newcastle btw ?

[AlunB]

No to the Virgin festival. Am not around.

Possibly to the GUKPT next month though. Although will likely miss Manc. You still playing in those?

[ubermonkey1]

Originally Posted by WASP

Very rarely see cheap flops at any level, entering the pot with a raise/reraise swings 'the power' in your favour for the rest of the hand or you are asking the question to define your hand more clearly or in this case both.

It is short handed he has a massive hand on the BB with a 3.5 raise and a call, I'd be raising but to around $11 pre flop not post flop. I'd rather take their $7 now than wait to see a tricky board. They are unlikely to reraise with AK AQ most likely to call so you can narrow down their range, if one of them reraises you have probably defined your hand to being behind to a higher pair but in some cases it maybe still worth calling (implied odds) because if you put him on KK/QQ and you flop the 9 then you have his entire stack.

Can you see how entering with a raise gathers you a whole load of information and makes your decisions easier as the hand plays out?

As for levels, you know I am up an down like a tarts knickers but I generally play at levels higher than this but I think this level still requires you to play a more powerful game.

too right bri
better to win/lose $7 now and know where you are instead of getting further along in the hand with big bets going in and still none the wiser to what your opponent has.

[WASP]

Originally Posted by AlunB

No to the Virgin festival. Am not around.

Possibly to the GUKPT next month though. Although will likely miss Manc. You still playing in those?

Yes going to manchester not sure about others

[robsterling]

Originally Posted by WASP

if one of them reraises you have probably defined your hand to being behind to a higher pair but in some cases it maybe still worth calling (implied odds) because if you put him on KK/QQ and you flop the 9 then you have his entire stack.

Really? I don't think you could ever call a 4-bet for set value, also AK will push a lot from my experience - depending on the player of course.