How bad was this play II?

Printable View

11-02-2005, 10:55 PM
krum2000

How bad was this play II?

Ok, so the same situation as before happened to me today. Here is how I handled it, like you said, and I still got beat. Better way to play this or am I just unlucky?

Game #1065917370 - (blinds $0.10/$0.25) No Limit Texas Hold'em -
2005/11/02-21:49:17.7 (CST)
Table "Rock Island" (real money) -- Seat 9 is the button
Seat 1: tttttt999 ($9.50 in chips)
Seat 2: WuVeezy ($10.35 in chips)
Seat 3: biffba ($9.50 in chips)
Seat 4: Beretta55 ($8.90 in chips)
Seat 5: MANDMS ($10.00 in chips)
Seat 7: krum2000 ($24.50 in chips)
Seat 8: Little Beach ($14.45 in chips)
Seat 9: tmk1010 ($14.10 in chips)
Seat 10: lovejones88 ($23.55 in chips)
lovejones88: Post Small Blind ($0.10)
tttttt999: Post Big Blind ($0.25)
MANDMS : Post ($0.25)
Dealing...
Dealt to krum2000 [ 7c ]
Dealt to krum2000 [ 7h ]
WuVeezy : Fold
biffba : Fold
Beretta55: Fold
MANDMS : Raise ($0.25)
krum2000: Call ($0.50)
Little Beach: Fold
tmk1010 : Fold
lovejones88: Call ($0.40)
tttttt999: Call ($0.25)
*** FLOP *** : [ 7s 5d Kd ]
lovejones88: Check
tttttt999: Check
MANDMS : Check
krum2000: Bet ($2)
lovejones88: Call ($2)
tttttt999: Fold
MANDMS : Fold
*** TURN *** : [ 7s 5d Kd ] [ Ad ]
lovejones88: Check
krum2000: Bet ($4)
lovejones88: Call ($4)
*** RIVER *** : [ 7s 5d Kd Ad ] [ 9s ]
lovejones88: Check
krum2000: Check
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $13.35 | Rake: $0.65
Board: [ 7s 5d Kd Ad 9s ]
tttttt999 lost $0.50 (folded)
WuVeezy didn't bet (folded)
biffba didn't bet (folded)
Beretta55 didn't bet (folded)
MANDMS lost $0.50 (folded)
krum2000 lost $6.50 (showed hand) [ 7c 7h ] (three of a kind, sevens)
Little Beach didn't bet (folded)
tmk1010 didn't bet (folded)
lovejones88 bet $6.50, collected $13.35, net +$6.85 (showed hand) [ 7d 8d ] (a
flush, ace high)
11-02-2005, 11:27 PM
johnny_fish

Well played.
11-03-2005, 01:21 AM
Greedo017

not bad at all, i'd call it pretty much standard
11-03-2005, 01:03 PM
EricE

Just be glad he didn't throw out a callable bet on the river. you saved a tad of money. hehe.

Good play though.
11-03-2005, 01:57 PM
Fnord

I would bet this river.
11-03-2005, 07:25 PM
TalentedTom

Dumb fish chasing a draw out of position thinking he can check raise the river. I would personally bet this river too, i think more than 6 of 10 times you are ahead
11-03-2005, 10:13 PM
sejje

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord

I would bet this river.

Me too, because of the AK out there. But how much of a raise can you call when he check-raises? I hate paying off flush draws dearly. They'll call the pot on the flop, and I want them to lose money doing it, so I don't even like paying it with a set.

But Krum, this is much, much better. You charged him to get there, had a redraw to beat him, and got away with a check-behind with second best.
11-03-2005, 11:18 PM
bair

this could not have been played better
11-03-2005, 11:21 PM
Fnord

Quote:

Originally Posted by bair

this could not have been played better

RESULTS SUCK

As posted it's very difficult to discuss the merits of his river play.
11-04-2005, 01:07 AM
yeardley

You should be happy with this hand. There was little more you could do to prevent him from making without getting silly yourself. And plenty of other people would have lost more in this hand and in your shoes.

Last time, the opp was on a straight draw and the turn flush card didn't help him. Put your play from this hand into the other one, and it's a different story right?

Fight for it when you think you got it (or can take it), and when you think you don't, try to lose the least possible without giving up the former. This is basically how you played it. But never throw up the white flag as soon as a scare card arrives, particularly when you're holding something relatively strong yourself.

Most importantly you took control while you bought yourself information and you took the best shot at winning the pot while you still had control and when it mattered. Played fine by you, poorly by opp, and smart of you to keep from getting sloppy. Only way it would have been smart move on opp's part is if you were going to pay him off much more if/when he made the flush or straight - enough to make up for the plenty of times he chases and doesn't hit. Checks and folds are good plays too sometimes. In the SLIGHT chance this guy was thinking 'implied odds,' you held your own.
11-04-2005, 03:30 AM
Lukie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord

I would bet this river.

Why?

As always.. disreguard actual results.

Hero establishes himself as the agressor on the flop and the turn, clearly with the best hand. The river brings the 3rd flush card, completing a straight for 68 in the process.

I think it was played fine. I don't see the value in betting behind on the river here when villain's betting pattern would indicate a strong draw. I think the only hand that *might* put more money in on the river is a paired ace that went into check-call mode on both the flop and turn, then checked the river as well.. unlikely.
11-04-2005, 10:44 AM
Rondavu

It's very close, but I do believe it's check behind. Not enough hands you're ahead of are calling here. If the flop was an A, and the turn a K, then I would change my mind. You have a bad ace paying you a lot of the time in that spot. With double coordination and a discouraging TURN for second best hands on the flop, I check behind, but it's very close.
11-04-2005, 02:56 PM
krum2000

Ok, for all of those that think a bet on the river is the play- How much? We already have a 13 dollar pot. I have 18 left and my opponent has 17. So, if I were to bet to his check, would it be a value bet of about half of the pot, maybe 6 dollars. Then, lets say I get reraised all in for another 10- could I really fold trips in this situation. And if I were to bet more, like a 9 dollar bet, then I would surely have to call a reraise. So, I guess what I am thinking is that, given the amount of money we both have, either it is a small bet-say 4 dollars- which I can get away from- OR- and maybe I am wrong- an all in bet so I at least have some fold equity. And plus, if he has AK I think he calls in all in bet and maybe just folds a small flush which he did have in this situation. Overall, i think the check is best, given any reasonable bet would have forced me to call a reraise given the pot odds.
11-04-2005, 04:54 PM
yeardley

You know, I didn't want to comment on the river play too much for a lot of reasons. First, to some extent it's a matter of style. Betting again on the river in these situations will add some extra variance to your bankroll...maybe it's something that will work for you and maybe not. You would need to be good at picking the right spots and the opps to do it against. Maybe sometimes they made a better hand, maybe sometimes they didn't. Maybe you're against an opp who can fold a baby flush, but I think you've probably seen your fair share of people at these stakes that are willing to go all in with any flush, and the AK of diamonds is already out there so a smaller flush has a lot less to worry about. Which brings us to another unknown factor (by us) - that we don't have the reads on this guy. Is he a stupid chaser or just a 'somewhat stupid' chaser, or not much of a chaser at all? Has he been calling all kinds of flop and turn bets and folding on the river? Has he been repping made hands and pushing people out on scare cards or later streets? It's pretty safe for him to assume you don't have a flush based on your play unless you've been shown at this table to bet your draws like this. Have you? And it's pretty safe for you to assume he does have a flush or straight a good portion of the time, if for no other reason than it's flush chasing stakes...check, call, check, call, check. It's up to you to decide what you want to do -if- he's made a hand, and I don't think it's a textbook answer quite like you're asking for.

I see no point in making a bet you can 'get away from' ($4 in your example) because it's bad business. Make that bet when you have the flush not when you don't, because, combined with your previous betting it implies that you don't. I also don't see a point in putting yourself in a situation where you "have to" call a raise because of pot odds. If you've got pot odds to do that then you have pot odds to check behind. If you're going for a river bet you want to have a reason why, and that reason should point toward winning the pot. If he'll fold to a $4 bet he'll fold to a 1/2 pot bet or greater, and I'd lean toward greater if you don't want a call. If he raises the latter, what is your reasoning for calling again? Isn't this the same thing as the guy who does not know how to ever lay down AA? You bet the way you did in this hand to - A) try to win it and charge for the draw, and B) to get the information you needed to know when you're probably beat and not lose any unnecessary amount of your stack. Why throw that away and revert back to playing on pure speculation? Maybe there's an answer, I don't know.

Let's not forget there are (a couple) other hands, slowplayed, or really stupidly played (in case of 99) that still beat you besides a flush. These are actually the hands I want to be up against, plus the straight, if I'm betting the river (hoping for a fold) along with the odd AK, Ax, 75, 55, etc. (hoping for a call). My preference, if you're going to do it, is to make a bet that you 'cannot get away from,' and then get the hell away from it anyway if you're forced to put the rest of your stack in (except the $1 you cover him by, or whatever). It sounds and looks a little weak, and it is weak - but without any other reads, plus the fact that I'll simply get called by a hand that beats me a lot of the time, this is exactly why I wouldn't personally do it in the first place. I write too much. Good day.
11-04-2005, 05:52 PM
Fnord

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeardley

You know, I didn't want to comment on the river play too much for a lot of reasons.

Funny, I think it's the only interesting part of this hand at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeardley

First, to some extent it's a matter of style. Betting again on the river in these situations will add some extra variance to your bankroll...maybe it's something that will work for you and maybe not.

I don't make more sets than anyone else, yet I win a lot more. Maybe it's because I find extra bets with the best hand? What does style have to do with finding some extra value?

To throw in a random reference, Brunson talks about this sort of bet in Super System. It stuck out to me as a limit "bet da riva" kinda guy, but is probably often over-looked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeardley

You would need to be good at picking the right spots and the opps to do it against.

Ummm.... yeah. Reading players + hands helps too. Many of the posters here don't talk about that much. When I came back to NLHE after the party split, this took me some time to figure out. The night playing with Okie and some other stuff made it clear why you can beat these games for lunch money on auto-pilot. But I digress...

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeardley

I see no point in making a bet you can 'get away from' ($4 in your example) because it's bad business.

Is there really much difference between bet/folding the river and raise/folding the flop (or whatever) to "see where you're at". Laying down when you're probably beat is just part of playing poker. I play poker better than my opponents, so I'm inclined to play more streets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeardley

Let's not forget there are (a couple) other hands, slowplayed, or really stupidly played (in case of 99) that still beat you besides a flush.

...and a whole lot of hands you had destroyed on every post-flop street. You've yet to make a good argument for not having value here. No hand ranges with equity, etc. The only one that's close is he's unknown, but nothing about an unknown $25 NL player in the games I've played in makes me not want to go for extra value.
11-05-2005, 02:35 AM
yeardley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeardley

You know, I didn't want to comment on the river play too much for a lot of reasons.

Funny, I think it's the only interesting part of this hand at all.

Fnord, I agree with you. The river is the only part of this hand that is interesting. It's interesting because there isn't a right or wrong play based on the cards, the pot, the bet, etc, as opposed to every other street in this hand. There is more to it than that, and as has already been shown in this thread, there are varying opinions, preferences, styles -- it's open to debate, and I think you can debate it all you want, there are winning players who play this river differently. However, if you have an answer that you think is right, or the most +EV, what is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeardley

First, to some extent it's a matter of style. Betting again on the river in these situations will add some extra variance to your bankroll...maybe it's something that will work for you and maybe not.

I don't make more sets than anyone else, yet I win a lot more. Maybe it's because I find extra bets with the best hand? What does style have to do with finding some extra value?

To throw in a random reference, Brunson talks about this sort of bet in Super System. It stuck out to me as a limit "bet da riva" kinda guy, but is probably often over-looked.

I haven't read Super System and I don't play limit so I might overlook this too. If you want to explain it further I'm interested to hear.

I feel that the specific actions involved in finding extra value has a lot to do with style, that it can be one of the things that defines one style from another. For example, someone just made a post recently about sLag vs. Tag and how sLag finds extra value in marginal hands that Tag wouldn't touch or would have gotten away from. Going with that example, I feel that betting this river is a bit of a looser play, and check/folding it is a bit of a tighter play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeardley

I see no point in making a bet you can 'get away from' ($4 in your example) because it's bad business.

Is there really much difference between bet/folding the river and raise/folding the flop (or whatever) to "see where you're at". Laying down when you're probably beat is just part of playing poker. I play poker better than my opponents, so I'm inclined to play more streets.

It's sort of challenging to respond to this part because I'm not clear what you're saying. In this example it was the flop and turn play combined that we were trying to help him improve on compared to his previous example hand. Yes, I do believe there is a lot of difference in "seeing where you're at" on different streets, especially before the river. That doesn't mean you can't keep it going on the river but, you're not saying you fire 3 off every single time you're in this situation, are you? There have to be times you choose to ease up on later streets. Maybe not, but for me this will sometimes be one of those times where I find extra value in checking and folding. The 2nd and 3rd sentence don't seem to fit together. Right, there is folding in poker. I don't understand why playing poker better than your opponents defaults to playing more streets. I do understand if you are saying that quality post-flop play allows you to outplay your opponents more often, and sometimes win with 2nd best. But where are you playing at this stake, that you have no calling stations (like villian) in your game who require you to beat them at showdown? I don't think I'm being "results-oriented." It's part of the process that you identify these players and outplay them accordingly. And anyway, in this example, the hero plays every street. Unless you are saying that his river check is not a play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeardley

Let's not forget there are (a couple) other hands, slowplayed, or really stupidly played (in case of 99) that still beat you besides a flush.

...and a whole lot of hands you had destroyed on every post-flop street. You've yet to make a good argument for not having value here. No hand ranges with equity, etc. The only one that's close is he's unknown, but nothing about an unknown $25 NL player in the games I've played in makes me not want to go for extra value.

I have actually made arguments for not having value. Well, for easing up on the river anyway due to a likelihood of not having value. I gave hand ranges. I can't speculate his pot equity on the river without knowing opp. but against unknown, in this hand...maybe I'm pessimistic but I say less than 40% considering the # who saw flop and the progression of the hand. Can you make arguments for having value besides anecdotal statements about the $25 NL games you've played in? If we want to imagine that villian has any two cards, then yes there are a whole lot of hands that hero destroys on the turn and river. Realistically, I think that list of hands is closer to the short list that I included in my previous post. Anything's possible, and opp. is certainly an idiot but I doubt he has K2.

I chose to add some advice here mostly for the 'standard,' non-interesting parts of the hand (and his previously posted hand) that he was having trouble with initially, because, particularly in his first hand I thought I would try to counter some discouraging remarks he received. Then he asked specifically about a river bet in this hand. I gave him my two cents, and I certainly didn't expect or desire to be the only one to give him an opinion on any of this, but I'm not here to hash it out with anyone unless they want to give their 50%. I gave the reasons why I play it the way I said. You've questioned some of what I've said and you might be right. But if you want to tell him why he should commit more or potentially all of his stack on the river in this situation then please do it. I'm serious when I say that maybe he and I will both learn something.
11-05-2005, 02:28 PM
Fnord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doyle Brunson

Betting for value is what it's all about. For example, if it came down to tha tough situation on the end and a tight player had two pair but there's a possible straight out there, well that tight player would probably check it trying to show the hands down. In that same situation, as long as I felt reasonably certain my opponent didnt' have that straight I'd be more aggressive. I want to make some money on the end. I want to get value for my two pair....blah, blah, blah, never was a tight player, blah, blah, blah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doyle Brunson

I don't have to have the nuts to bet my hand on the end. If I feel like I've got the best hand, I'm going to bet it and get value from it. A more conservative player would check it on the end, and he'd get his check called. So he'll lose that last bet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeardley

But if you want to tell him why he should commit more or potentially all of his stack on the river in this situation then please do it. I'm serious when I say that maybe he and I will both learn something.

Commit to nothing! There is too much money behind to make crying calls for lots of chips.