Flopping a set - call or reraise?

My only explanation for this play is that I was playing too many tables to put enough thought into what I was doing. Ugly to only win the amount I did...just ugly. I think that thoughts about the flush draw where in my head somewhere, but still...


Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ Hero (2 handed) converter

Button ($56.3)
Hero ($16)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 4:spade:, 4:heart:. Button posts a blind of $0.5.
Hero calls $0.25, Button (poster) raises to $1.5, Hero calls $1.50.

Flop: ($4) 4:diamond:, A:club:, T:diamond: (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $2, Hero calls $14 (All-In), Button folds.

Final Pot: $20

He is the pre-flop aggressor, so he likely has a powerful hand.

Full table, then i believe this is always the correct move. Don't let people draw flushes to your sets.

2 handed, I slowplay because trips is going to win heads up a very very large percent of the time, let him continue betting.

I think the AI is a bit hasty unless you have good reason to think you will get called.

I would have put in a raise that is alot bigger than will give him correct odds to call on a flush draw, yet small enough for him to feel obligated to call. Maybe raise him by $6...

Yea you definitely want to squeeze a little bit more out of this hand, he could have been sitting with JJ or QQ and wanted to feel for that ace but you scared him off. But do not slowplay it either - id just raise.

Oh yeh, and start with a full stack next time.

(and I have read your posts about not starting with a full stack.)

Playing short stacked is a bad idea. You lose profit on big hands and you lose leverage against big stacks. I love playing against short stacks, because I'm not afraid of them going AI when I'm in a tricky hand.

I would have lead out on the flop. There are a number of draws on the board and he may just decide to take a free card with K-Q, Q-J or two diamonds if your plan is to check-raise. Betting also helps to disguise your hand since most players expect you to check a set, and is an excellent way to extract maximum value from hands like A-K or A-Q (which are the most likely hands anyways). If you're afraid he'll fold to a bet, consider that if he'd fold to a bet, you can't expect to get much action out of him otherwise.

It's a HU pot.

Droppin the hammer is fine if you think he's got the case ace. You could have been a bit more gentle with it.

Multi-ways, you definitly drop da hammer.

-'rilla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lonnie

I love playing against short stacks, because I'm not afraid of them going AI when I'm in a tricky hand.

---

That's why I love playing as a short stack. People will call me more often when they don't have the best of it. I genuinely believe that I make more buying into a NL$100 table with $20 that buying into a NL$25 table with $25. I'm going to be looking at that theory in more detail soon (after I finish analyzing my swing-fest this weekend), but I don't know that I'll change my tune.

Would I make more with $100 at a NL$100 table? Of course. But I don't really have that option with my current BR (and I'd probably rather have the option of winning greater amounts than the .5/1 blind structure offers on an average hand even if I could buy in with $100). Comparing apples to apples, I think I make more on a $25 buyin at NL$100 than NL$25. I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me otherwise.

I tend to just call if there is no flush draw out there, and a 1 card straight draw out there. If there is a draw out on the board will raise hoping to push them out of the pot..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Droppin the hammer is fine if you think he's got the case ace.

---

There are three aces left in the deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsaxton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Droppin the hammer is fine if you think he's got the case ace.

---

There are three aces left in the deck.

---

So? I just said case ace becuase it sounded nice.

If he has a case ace.

-'rilla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lonnie

Oh yeh, and start with a full stack next time.

(and I have read your posts about not starting with a full stack.)

Playing short stacked is a bad idea. You lose profit on big hands and you lose leverage against big stacks. I love playing against short stacks, because I'm not afraid of them going AI when I'm in a tricky hand.

---

in fact if i have a flush draw, i might set the short stacks all in because im a bully.

its cheap to crack good hands being held by short-stacks, and if you do it enough the rest of the table will fear you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Element187

in fact if i have a flush draw, i might set the short stacks all in because im a bully.

its cheap to crack good hands being held by short-stacks, and if you do it enough the rest of the table will fear you.

---

Again, making my point. You make a -EV move because you're playing against someone you think you can bully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Element187

in fact if i have a flush draw, i might set the short stacks all in because im a bully.

its cheap to crack good hands being held by short-stacks, and if you do it enough the rest of the table will fear you.

---

Again, making my point. You make a -EV move because you're playing against someone you think you can bully.

---

its +EV because the majority of the time i set you all in, you wont have the goods .


lets say 1 out of 10 times you have the goods.. the other 9 i have picked up the pot, already padding my stack with the extra chips i need to try and bust you + more.


sure youll make some money back that 1 out of 10 times, but im already making a much larger profit by being a large stack bully.

You totally just went against your previous point. You're not busting my good hands then, you're getting me to fold when I have nothing. I'll do that as a small stack or a big stack any time I feel it's warranted.

Read my ballsy post in reference to my fear of Big Stacks. Your style attitude and some nice reads allowed me to double up with J8o. I'm very happy with that.

Despite your apparent opinion, playing a small stack does not necessarily mean playing scared. For me, it means the opposite.

Quote:

---

You make a -EV move because you're playing against someone you think you can bully.

---

I don't see any substantiation for this being -EV. Big assumption.

Now, the point I was making...playing against short stacks is easy. Let's say I get involved in a pot where I have AK, make a healthy preflop raise and get a few callers.

There are 2 clubs on the board, one being an Ace.

I make a pot size bet which happens to be $16 in this particular case. Let's assume that calling this bet will leave you with only 4 dollars in your stack. Everyone folds but you.

Now, if the 3rd club hits the board, you have absolutely no leverage. I'm not even worried about what hits the board at this point, it is +EV for me to call off the remaining few dollars you have in your stack. It is probably even higher +EV for me to put you all in on the turn no matter what I have.

If I were up against a big stack, now I have to do a lot more thinking when scare cards hit.

The only way you will ever win with a short stack in this type of situation is to have the best hand. Big stacks can win by either having the best hand, or betting their opp out of the pot.

Quote:

---

Despite your apparent opinion, playing a small stack does not necessarily mean playing scared. For me, it means the opposite.

---

Of course you're not scared...it turns into a game of the preflop and flop move-in specialist. I'll bet you aren't making too many decisions on the turn and river... With small stacks you probably find yourself committed either way by the flop.

Not saying it's not profitable, because it can be. Against skilled opps, you are losing too much leverage though.

It's going to take a lot for me to call a pot-sized bet with only a flush draw in any situation. I have played at very few tables where people are regularly betting more than 20x the big blind. Maybe I'm just inexperienced with my meager 15k hands, but I haven't seen it happen.

And for the record, I'm not the only player here on FTR that routinely plays small stack in ring games. I am probably the worst player doing it (or at least the worst player trying to do it well and for the right reasons).

I'm done arguing about this. I have bigger holes in my game to plug than this one, especially since I completely disagree about this being a problem. I've heard the arguments. I understand your position. But it fits my style better than a full buy-in. I can play more comfortably, not to mention having sessions where I gleefully turn $20 into $150 (no, this isn't the norm for me, but it has happened). Can you do that at a NL$25 table?

Quote:

---

I'm done arguing about this. I have bigger holes in my game to plug than this one, especially since I completely disagree about this being a problem.

---

:lol: OK, but keep this in mind. Every time I have chosen to ignore advice that was repeatedly drilled into my head from members of this forum, I ALWAYS ended up looking back on my viewpoint and wondering why I had been so stubborn. Some things you gotta figure out for yourself though. I can definitely appreciate the need to stay in your comfort zone. Perhaps Limit holdem would be more appropriate? (strictly tongue in cheek)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

not to mention having sessions where I gleefully turn $20 into $150 (no, this isn't the norm for me, but it has happened). Can you do that at a NL$25 table?

---

yes i can.


PP is too loose not to profit easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

I gleefully turn $20 into $150 (no, this isn't the norm for me, but it has happened). Can you do that at a NL$25 table?

---

My best is $270 at a 25NL :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

I gleefully turn $20 into $150 (no, this isn't the norm for me, but it has happened). Can you do that at a NL$25 table?

---

My best is $270 at a 25NL :D

---

you have me beat, mine was around 180

I broke 350 at a 25NL table once, but it had a lot of money when I joined (a couple guys over 100). I don't play there anymore because of the blind change (Party).

Anyway, here's an argument about not playing as a short stack:

A large portion of my winnings come from flopping a set with a small pocket pair, especially after there was a raise preflop.

Being short-stacked, you can't call much of a raise (anything over $2 with a $20 stack) and still flop small pocket pairs profitably. But if I flop them with $50, or more, I can easily make money on this play.

Really that goes for playing to any kind of raise. You're losing so much in implied odds, because the most you can milk out of an opponent is what you have. Also, the blinds are so large in relation to your stack...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lonnie

I love playing against short stacks, because I'm not afraid of them going AI when I'm in a tricky hand.

---

That's why I love playing as a short stack. People will call me more often when they don't have the best of it. I genuinely believe that I make more buying into a NL$100 table with $20 that buying into a NL$25 table with $25. I'm going to be looking at that theory in more detail soon (after I finish analyzing my swing-fest this weekend), but I don't know that I'll change my tune.

Would I make more with $100 at a NL$100 table? Of course. But I don't really have that option with my current BR (and I'd probably rather have the option of winning greater amounts than the .5/1 blind structure offers on an average hand even if I could buy in with $100). Comparing apples to apples, I think I make more on a $25 buyin at NL$100 than NL$25. I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me otherwise.

---

Although i don't really agree with what you do, it seems to be working for you and whenever i see someone buy in for less than the max they virtually always go right onto my fish list, i give them absolutely no credit for anything and will be a lot looser with my calls against them.

The real problem i see with buying in for $20 into a 100 dollar game is the swings would be much much greater. I'll often walk into a 100nl game and lose 20 dollars to run of the mill plays, whereas in your case that's your entire buyin, which would actually make a difference to your bankroll rather than being only a slight loss for someone who is properly bankrolled for NL100.

Back to the ORIGINAL topic, I think a raise all in here is really kinda dumb. What do you think he has here? A high PP? An ace?

If either of these crossed your mind, going all in here is NOT the best way to get paid.

You have position on him, so he always has to bet first. Let him bet, and call him until the river, where you raise him once he's committed.

In early position, this gets a bit trickier, but yeah. Going all in here is definitely NOT the play to make.

I agree, all-in is a bad play there.

But going back to the second topic of discussion, you also don't have enough money at the table to push anyone off of a draw in a big pot. In fact, your lack of chips might make it CORRECT when it was wrong otherwise.

Sklansky talks about that a lot in limit, that fish have odds to call down with middle pair and stuff. It's because you can't bet them out. And neither can you at these NL tables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ensign_lee

Back to the ORIGINAL topic...

---

Thank you. There was no question in my mind that AI was a bad play here. I simply wasn't sure whether smooth-calling or reraising more to the tune of around the size of the pot was the better play. Either is much better than what I actually did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sejje

But going back to the second topic of discussion, you also don't have enough money at the table to push anyone off of a draw in a big pot. In fact, your lack of chips might make it CORRECT when it was wrong otherwise.

---

Umm...no. The pot isn't big, even relative to my stack. Betting the size of the pot is easily doable and should drive off any draws (assuming reasonable players).

If the pot were large, then yes, pushing could result in a call with correct odds, but this would be the case no matter my stack size - 35% for the draw to come in means that as long as the push amounts to less than 1.2 times the size of the pot. Further, having such a small stack means that their implied odds agaisnt me are miniscule, so drawing against me is less profitable.

jeffrey's point is valid about not sitting at the max buyin at these levels... but I do prefer to sit with more than the average player's stack.