How do you play this hand?

[TimC]

Yeah, if he re-raises on the turn, you can pop it once, but you gotta slow down on the river.

[xMRogers]

the biggest problem with trying to gauge the play of this sort of hand is the small stakes and limit rules - makes the "wrong" play happen way too often from the other party so your "right" play isn't necessarily going to win the percentage it should. I've been at tables where guys just play hands without lookign at their cards till after the flop or even turn - obviously not the right play, but the stakes are so low, they don't necessarily care.

[Grits and Shins]

After his reraise to $8 on the turn, I am check calling this hand down. You are far less likely to be up against a bluff putting in the 4th bet on the turn in limit poker, as at this point you have hugh pot odds to at least call down, so you know he has a hand. Now, given your range of hands that he has that could beat you, plus the hands he may play like this that you beat, and not knowing anything about him like if he will raise and reraise a raiser on a bluff or a draw like this, you have to give him credit for a strong hand, although as he only limped and did not reraise, you likely woudn't put him on a big pair, meaning, the likelihood of 66 and 2-x go up in comparison to those bigger hands that you beat, albeit hands like 77-99 are still legitimate possibilities, though I would tend to doubt that after the 4th bet when the Q hits (again, note that having never played with him, there is very limited information to go on.)

 

All information indicates he has a big hand. You either do as I would and check call the river after he puts in the 4th bet on the turn, or you do as you did, which is higher risk but bigger payoff if your hand is good. The one thing that is obvious is that you can't fold your hand as you are getting hugh pot odds.

 

 

There is no doubt I never fold the hand.

 

The only question is when and if I should have reigned in my aggressive betting. This guy is a very loose player that fancies himself a good player. In the limit game he likes to see lots of flops and chases the river all the time. He likes to bet/play draws. Having said that it was possible that after the flop he was on a straight draw (A-3, 5-7 etc), but after the turn is a Q and he doesn't fold clearly he has to have a minimum of 2 pair ... the only question is does he have 6-6, A-A, Q-Q, 2-x.

[Furd]

I put him on 2 pair, then a smaller boat on the river ... so something like A-6 ... or with a pocket pair like Js.

 

 

 

Why do you think that he'd keep reraising you if all he had was a 6? The only thing that makes sense from his play is that he had a 2 or a pair of 6s in the hole.

 

If all he had was a six, as you suspected, he would be fearing a 2 or a pair larger than his 6s. Only a maniac would be betting the way that he did without a 2 or a pair of 6s, as it should have been pretty clear that no one was going to get pushed out of the pot.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Furd

[broncosn05]

There is no doubt I never fold the hand.

 

The only question is when and if I should have reigned in my aggressive betting. This guy is a very loose player that fancies himself a good player. In the limit game he likes to see lots of flops and chases the river all the time. He likes to bet/play draws. Having said that it was possible that after the flop he was on a straight draw (A-3, 5-7 etc), but after the turn is a Q and he doesn't fold clearly he has to have a minimum of 2 pair ... the only question is does he have 6-6, A-A, Q-Q, 2-x.

 

Would've started after the turn.

[Grits and Shins]

Tell me why you played the hand this way. When you make a bet, you should be looking to gain information. When he raises you every single friggin time you bet, you should be picking up a signal that perhaps he actually has a hand. In that case, you probably want to slow down and try to keep the pot small. Maybe you dont want to get away from your Cowboys, but just smooth call his raises to limit the size of your loss in the event he actually does have a hand. You just keep hard chargin against this maniac like you dont think he would play a 2 or 66 against a pre-flop raise. You already said he was looser than cream corn so he could have anything including the hands that beat you. Why not just smooth call his raises on the turn and river?

 

 

Why did I play it that way ... 3 reasons:

 

1) I don't respect his play

2) My cards had been dead all night and I wanted to score big

3) I was playing on house money after splitting the preceeding NL tournament.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Grits and Shins

[spain]

There is no doubt I never fold the hand.

 

You better get the word "never" out of your vocabulary or else you are destined to lose ALOT of money at the poker table.

[Grits and Shins]

You better get the word "never" out of your vocabulary or else you are destined to lose ALOT of money at the poker table.

 

 

That word never was applied to this specific scenario .. it was not a generic application. I have and will fold big pocket pairs, including aces.

[TimC]

so he had pocket 6's and yer kid is getting the cheap softball bat this year?

[spain]

Why did I play it that way ... 3 reasons:

 

1) I don't respect his play

2) My cards had been dead all night and I wanted to score big

3) I was playing on house money after splitting the preceeding NL tournament.

 

1. I understand this perfectly and it makes some sense. But you still cant disregard completely what information you are getting back simply because this dude is a maniac.

2. This should have ZERO bearing on how you play THIS hand. It doesnt matter if you have been card dead all night long. The only thing that matters is THIS hand. Dont let any other hands, bad beats, etc. affect the way you play THIS hand.

3. Should have no affect on whether your decisions are correct or not.

[Grits and Shins]

1. I understand this perfectly and it makes some sense. But you still cant disregard completely what information you are getting back simply because this dude is a maniac.

2. This should have ZERO bearing on how you play THIS hand. It doesnt matter if you have been card dead all night long. The only thing that matters is THIS hand. Dont let any other hands, bad beats, etc. affect the way you play THIS hand.

 

I was seeing it as an opportunity to score a big pot and was viewing it as one of my few opportunities to do so.

 

3. Should have no affect on whether your decisions are correct or not.

 

True. My point was it was allowing more aggressive behavior.

[chiefjay]

ok, so what did he have? Unless I missed it somewhere in this thread.

[Azazello1313]

so he had pocket 6's and yer kid is getting the cheap softball bat this year?

 

 

if the guy is an even worse player than blitz, he probably had jacks or something and blitz is setting this whole story up to show how brilliant he is.

 

more likely, he had 6s, Qs, or a deuce.

[Furd]

ok, so what did he have? Unless I missed it somewhere in this thread.

 

 

 

My money is on A-2.

[chiefjay]

so he had pocket 6's and yer kid is getting the cheap softball bat this year?

 

 

Softball? How dare you. Don't be insulting Grit's kid now. Or Sarge's for that matter.

[Grits and Shins]

ok, so what did he have? Unless I missed it somewhere in this thread.

 

 

6-6

[xMRogers]

so here's a q - if he had QQ do you think he would have done ANYTHIGN different...(or een 10-10) cause again, with these low stakes, full percentage playing isn't going to work out without even considering a true "bluff"

[Grits and Shins]

so here's a q - if he had QQ do you think he would have done ANYTHIGN different...(or een 10-10) cause again, with these low stakes, full percentage playing isn't going to work out without even considering a true "bluff"

 

 

Actually the question is ... would he have done anything differently if he had A-6 or J-J

[spain]

None of us are professionals Blitz, and there is no right or wrong answer. I was just giving you my opinion. I think you definitely should have slowed down in the face of constant re-raises with that board. Even if he didnt have the best hand at the end, the prudent thing would have been to check/call or smooth call his raises based on the information we had. You would have lost less money.

[Grits and Shins]

None of us are professionals Blitz, and there is no right or wrong answer. I was just giving you my opinion. I think you definitely should have slowed down in the face of constant re-raises with that board. Even if he didnt have the best hand at the end, the prudent thing would have been to check/call or smooth call his raises based on the information we had. You would have lost less money.

 

 

No doubt, I ignored the warning signs and proceeded without caution.

[Big Country]

the biggest problem with trying to gauge the play of this sort of hand is the small stakes and limit rules - makes the "wrong" play happen way too often from the other party so your "right" play isn't necessarily going to win the percentage it should. I've been at tables where guys just play hands without lookign at their cards till after the flop or even turn - obviously not the right play, but the stakes are so low, they don't necessarily care.

 

 

Said by someone that must have learned watching NL on TV.

 

In limit (and NL), many times both players are playing the "right" way. The rihgt way being to bet when you are ahead, and also to call if getting the proper odds to do so. The biggest complaint I hear from most new players about limit poker is that they can not "protect" their hand. This is a bunch of bull. The complaint should be that they are unable to switch gears and play limit competently (not meant as a direct insul Xm, just that so many people bash the limit game for "wrong" reasons).

 

In this case, assuming the "villain" is the UTG caller, he is doing little wrong if he can expect a few callers behind him. Once Grits raises and the BB calls, the "villain" is getting 5.5 to 1 on his call with his pair of 6's. He's looking for either all low cards or to spike the 6 on his flop (as Grits and the BB are as likely to be raising with two over cards as they are a bigger pair, a low flop likely misses them, spiking the 6 gives him a monster).

 

Now, the limits depend on the people playing... sure, most of us can afford the $50 you would buy in to a $1-$2 limit game with, but, if playing for fun or if it is significant money, you still will try to play correct, and against those players that are in every hand, you will come out ahead... in the long run.

[Big Country]

None of us are professionals Blitz, and there is no right or wrong answer. I was just giving you my opinion. I think you definitely should have slowed down in the face of constant re-raises with that board. Even if he didnt have the best hand at the end, the prudent thing would have been to check/call or smooth call his raises based on the information we had. You would have lost less money.

 

 

I forget where I saw this quote (well, something close to it): Often times the difference between a winning and a losing player is not the bets that you win, but the bets that you don't lose.

[Grits and Shins]

Said by someone that must have learned watching NL on TV.

 

In limit (and NL), many times both players are playing the "right" way. The rihgt way being to bet when you are ahead, and also to call if getting the proper odds to do so. The biggest complaint I hear from most new players about limit poker is that they can not "protect" their hand. This is a bunch of bull. The complaint should be that they are unable to switch gears and play limit competently (not meant as a direct insul Xm, just that so many people bash the limit game for "wrong" reasons).

 

In this case, assuming the "villain" is the UTG caller, he is doing little wrong if he can expect a few callers behind him. Once Grits raises and the BB calls, the "villain" is getting 5.5 to 1 on his call with his pair of 6's. He's looking for either all low cards or to spike the 6 on his flop (as Grits and the BB are as likely to be raising with two over cards as they are a bigger pair, a low flop likely misses them, spiking the 6 gives him a monster).

 

Now, the limits depend on the people playing... sure, most of us can afford the $50 you would buy in to a $1-$2 limit game with, but, if playing for fun or if it is significant money, you still will try to play correct, and against those players that are in every hand, you will come out ahead... in the long run.

 

It's funny that you say that ... 'cause the other guy in this hand is continually spouting that and continually trying to switch our game to PL or NL.

 

In our game I am percieved as a very tight player and generally come out ahead. Our monthly game starts with a $20 buy in NL tournament and concludes with a .5/1 limit cash game. I play very differently in the tournament versus in cash game. For instance at one point in the NL tournament with 5 people left I had K-Q suited on the button. UTG went all in and had me covered. We pay top 3 and there were 2 players close to being eliminated. I thought long and hard about calling, but in the end folded because I preferred to wait out the 2 short stacks.

 

NL and Limit are very different games.

 

In NL I often use my image as a tight player and my position to buy the blinds or steal the pot. I can also use my image and position in limit poker, just not as effectively.

[Big Country]

Yup... limit it pays to be a tight player. in NL, it pays to be a tight player, but can pay more if you find ways to get in cheap to see flops with hands that have the potential to stack off a player, things like medium suited connectors and even one gappers.

 

Now, in addition to NL and limit being different, tourney and cash are very different. So, with just hold em, you could have the exact same hand and play it 4 different ways based on the situation (limit vs. NL and tourney vs. cash) and have each of those different decisions be the best play in terms of EV for that given situation.

[xMRogers]

 

 

In limit (and NL), many times both players are playing the "right" way. The rihgt way being to bet when you are ahead, and also to call if getting the proper odds to do so. The biggest complaint I hear from most new players about limit poker is that they can not "protect" their hand.

 

you still will try to play correct, and against those players that are in every hand, you will come out ahead... in the long run.

 

While I don't disagree with you for the most part, when a person is betting without looking at their cards...

 

Where I'm going is Blitz already stated the guy played loose - loose in a 1/2 game can mean simply "bets everything" so betting when "ahead" becomes a bit tricky.

 

The other point is I completely agree on the long run - but for the hand in general, the "call vs. raise" question get's tricky.

 

I will say that I think the re-raise on this for blitz was too much factored on the go for broke/house money issue to be the "right" play, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong one.