When and how to lay down

Hello all,

I am a newbie in poker for the last 6 months and naturally would like to learn more about the game.

This has been one of my leaks and wonder any reliable way of reading the play.

$1/$2 cash game, 9 players, only the second hand on the table, no read on other players yet.

In the MP/UTG+2, stack $200, holding QQ, raised to $10.

Villain 2 seats to the left called, stack $220, heads up.

Flop: 2s2d4c
Hero: Bet $17
Villain: Called $17

Turn: Th
Hero: Check
Villain: Bet $37
Hero: Raised $74
Villain: Called $74

River: 7d
Hero: Bet $57
Villain: All-in $64
Hero: Called

Showdown Hero: AA win the pot.

2 things that I could have done:
1. Bigger raise pre-flop.
2. All-in turn.

What do you guys think? Amy advice would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Mike

If he has AA you aren't getting him to lay it down. Not on that board.


You could try to call down cheap and save some part of your stack.

After your c/r on the turn is called you should know you're in trouble. You hand only beats Tx, JJ by then.

I would c/c the turn, bet/fold river.

Originally Posted by minSim

After your c/r on the turn is called you should know you're in trouble. You hand only beats Tx, JJ by then.

I would c/c the turn, bet/fold river.

do you often check/call the turn though? That line says unpaired overs and when the villain bets, do you really think your up against Aces or Kings then? A good villain will steal that from you if you check the turn a lot -

I think you played the hand well - the red lights should go off when they call your check raise - on the river you should try to check/call then...but the guy smooth called you with AA, so just make a mental note of it next time -

preflop raise seems fine - when you run into aces like this, you will lose more by raising up more preflop....I think your play was fine - maybe try check calling the river - I have a problem with this also though - the way the hand was played, I have to figure my QQ's are good most of the time -

Your raise preflop was fine. Shoving the turn does no good. Neither really does the check/raise.

Part of me actually prefers a passive-check/call line on both the turn and river. Hands that you're beating only have a very small chance to beat you on the river, but hands that beat you won't get as much out of you this way.

A bigger issue on this hand than improving your aggression (seems fine), is controlling the potsize to minize losses with hands where you only have one pair.

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

A bigger issue on this hand than improving your aggression (seems fine), is controlling the potsize to minize losses with hands where you only have one pair.

this is something i have a major problem with - great when i've got the best hand, but too many times i get into a real big pot with 1 pair - I guess I pot the flop and lead the turn MOSTLY because aggression will win me those pots, and when I lead weakly and get raised, I have no idea where i'm at...thinking villains see it as C-betting a missed flop -

so do you just keep bet sizes the same for C-bets and overpair bets? (or big hands for that matter) - What is the best way to get the cheaper showdowns and smaller pots with hands like Jacks or Q's (2 of my big problem hands)? is there a happy medium when im getting paid off when i'm ahead, but saving money when im behind?

I think your bet sizes were ok. I'd prefer to only see you putting in about half the bets you put in.

I know the check/call line seems weak, but you beat most of the hands that are laying down to your stronger lines, so playing it this way makes the same (or more) when you win, but costs less when you lose.

Being OOP was part of what made this expensive. That's normal, as pot control is much harder OOP. That's why I prefer to take a more passive line from the turn onward.

Thanks cardman, minsim, jeffrey for your advice, and limpin for gettting the discussion going.

I agree with the strategy of limiting the pot size since 1 pair post flop is weak most of the time in a ring game, especially with no read of the villain. May be being passive post-flop is the key, unless if villain senses the weakness and try to steal the pot with an all-in bet, then......fold under pressure???

The way I played it was to represent pocket Ts with c/r at the turn and value bet at the river, but I guess the 5BB raise from EP may have made that less liekly and not many people will fold AA at the river.

Thanks again, I learn a lot here.

Cheers.

Mike

I think if anything your CR looked like a KT, AT that hit, not a TT. if you are going to try to push someone off a hand on the river (not that I am advocating this), make sure you both have enough left for a credible bluff. sklansky goes over this a lot in NLHT&P.

Thanks pgil, you raised a good point, with rainbow on the board and no real str8 or flush threats, it is unlikely that one will c/raise when complete a FH.

On the other hand, if I do have a FH/TTs, I might just played exactly the same way to (mis)represent AT/KT for trapping and I may well succeeded.

I guess that's why poker is an interesting game

Cheers.

Mike

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

A bigger issue on this hand than improving your aggression (seems fine), is controlling the potsize to minize losses with hands where you only have one pair.

Is this the right way to think about it.? I keep the pot small, not to minimise losses, but because I have a small hand and want to play a small pot.

Perhaps I just said exactly the same thing as you, but in my head they are different. Folding minimises losses. Keeping the pot small when you have a marginal holding minimises the size of your mistakes.

Villain calls a five big-blind preflop raise.
Villain calls a pot-sized flop bet.
What's he got? As the hand progresses, the answer seems less and less likely to be "high offsuit crap."

This hand was misplayed... with a baby hand like Queens just fire some weak bets like you missed to keep it cheap. you're not repeat not stacking even (god willing!) AT here. You might get KQ to chase you down the river.

Check-raising here is ... painful to watch. Let me give you an analogy that Slansky/Malmuth/some poker nerd said in a book:

You're playing a 2-player poker game called "high card" against another guy. There are three cards in the deck: an ace, a king, and a queen. You're each dealt one card, the third lays down flat. 1 street, high card wins.

Strategy seems obvious, but not really. First, always bet the ace- it's the nuts, duh. But here's the kicker- you NEVER should bet the king. You might want to check-call. But never bet with it. Here's why. An opponent with the queen will never call; one with the ace always will. If you at least check the king, you might get the queen to bluff some chips off.

So, basically- the ace (nuts, good hand) you bet straight out (king might get suspicious).
-the king always check (might get queen to bluff?)
-queen check/fold or bluff the king out.

The moral of the story: aggression with mediocre / lukewarm hands SUCKS. If you have some weakish / meh hand and toss a handful of chips in, opponents are folding their bad and calling with their good. When you check-raise here (the minimum for some reason...) you're not getting anything better to fold.

You're not getting Kings, Aces, trips, or () a boat to fold.
You're not getting A4, 66, or KQ to call.

What is the point of the bet? If you thought he had Jacks or AT the raise might work but those'd hafta be damn good reading skills. BTW in the end does AA surprise you? He played it exactly how you'd expect a guy with AA to play it.

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

A bigger issue on this hand than improving your aggression (seems fine), is controlling the potsize to minize losses with hands where you only have one pair.

Is this the right way to think about it.? I keep the pot small, not to minimise losses, but because I have a small hand and want to play a small pot.

Perhaps I just said exactly the same thing as you, but in my head they are different. Folding minimises losses. Keeping the pot small when you have a marginal holding minimises the size of your mistakes.

We are using two different phrases to mean the same thing. Mine stems from a popular saying Soupie used back in the day "Maximize your wins when you when the hand; minimize your losses when you lose." It's not meant to be taken quite as literally as "fold if you don't have the nuts 'cause you'll lose less" .

c/r is horrible without a read that villian is a complete fish and will call down with <QQ.