making SC's profitable?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Actually, not to be harsh but that hand preflop is horrible. No one open limps two gap sc's UTG, they are strictly lp.

[martindcx1e]

Actually, not to be harsh but that hand preflop is horrible. No one open limps two gap sc's UTG, they are strictly lp.

actually i don't mind it a lot of times. at low stakes like this you usually have a slew of passives and chronic min-raisers pre-flop, which is good for your hand.

[Halv]

Actually, not to be harsh but that hand preflop is horrible. No one open limps two gap sc's UTG, they are strictly lp.

I agree, especially if the table is aggressive. These days I dump everything up to at least 98s UTG at a standard, relatively aggressive 6-max table. At full ring my range will be even tighter. Also, stack sizes at hero's table make matters worse.

Of course "strictly" is a bit too strong, nothing wrong with mixing it up a little every now and then. But limping SCs, gappers, etc in EP is just not a good standard play imho.

[Chopper]

... i will occasionally play somthing like this...to change it up.

thanks for the comments, but i think you guys need to READ the ENTIRE post before making comments about standard play.

where did i say this was standard for me? and i think i admitted this is not the thing to do...generally with the comments in bold.

the tables at the 25 level are SOOOO tight-passive, compared to last year at this time. you can limp any two, if you know what to look for post flop, and get a break and HIT that flop.

the guys at this table, which i guess i did not mention, were VERY passive pf. my GT+ #'s, for the table, showed the table at 24% vpip, 4% pfr, and 33% to SD. now who wouldnt open-limp any multi-way hand on THIS table, occasionally, to "take a shot." and play any sc, small pp, etc in postion w/ 3+ limpers EVERY CHANCE THEY GOT.

you can have a lot of success playing "undercards" at these levels since most people play ONLY premiums and pp's, as you should know your undercards are live.

i KNOW this is a HORRIBLE hand oop, but how much "deceptive value" did i have? who could put me on 79s? nobody at this table, thats for sure. had i been raised pf, i would have folded to anything but a min-raise. if i had only hit the draw, and any aggression comes out after my open-check (you wouldnt bet the flop on a draw with this hand, i hope), i have to strongly reevaluate, and most likely drop the hand.

but when you are allowed to draw and suckout on these passive tables...you should do it, i dont care what 2 cards you hold!

...i'm sorry occasionally.

[biondino]

Low content, high risk:


Seat 1: Randori (£50.82 in chips)
Seat 2: valeter04 (£10.55 in chips)
Seat 3: Corrallie (£28.05 in chips)
Seat 4: Zerbombt (£116.85 in chips)
Seat 5: M1ckaveli (£20.50 in chips)
Seat 6: urethra (£71.03 in chips)
urethra: posts small blind £0.25
Randori: posts big blind £0.50
valeter04: posts big blind £0.50 + posts small blind £0.25
----- HOLE CARDS -----
dealt to Zerbombt [8c 6c]
valeter04: checks
Corrallie: folds
Zerbombt: calls £0.50
M1ckaveli: calls £0.50
urethra: raises to £3.50
Randori: folds
valeter04: folds
Zerbombt: calls £3
M1ckaveli: folds
----- FLOP ----- [4s Qh 5h]
urethra: bets £2.50
Zerbombt: calls £2.50
----- TURN ----- [4s Qh 5h][7d]
urethra: bets £11
Zerbombt: calls £11
----- RIVER ----- [4s Qh 5h 7d][Qc]
urethra: bets £23
Zerbombt: raises to £99.85 and is all-in
urethra: is all-in £31.03
Returned uncalled bets £45.82 to Zerbombt
----- SHOW DOWN -----
Zerbombt: shows [8c 6c] (A Straight, Eight high)
urethra: shows [Ah Ad] (Two Pairs, Aces and Queens, Seven high)
Zerbombt collected £140.81 from Main pot

[Numbr2intheWorld]

1. limping SC early is not deceptive, it's just kind of dumb.

2. occassionally or not, if it's a bad play it's a bad play. If you only make that bad play occassionaly... well good for you, but wouldn't you rather never do that bad play?

3. both the hands posted weren't played very well.

4. SC's are profitable to limp when there are a lot of limpers. They are also profitable when raised from late position and played well post flop. The way you play them when you hit a nut hand (and in your example, the money is pretty much put in for you) isn't going to completely determine if you play them profitably. It's the other times.

[martindcx1e]

what is wrong with limping sc's in ep/mp when at a table full of passives and chronic minraisers (like MANY lowstakes tables are)?

[Beck]

what is wrong with limping sc's in ep/mp when at a table full of passives and chronic minraisers (like MANY lowstakes tables are)?

maybe it is a leak in my game, but I do it as well

[Chopper]

what is wrong with limping sc's in ep/mp when at a table full of passives and chronic minraisers (like MANY lowstakes tables are)?

absotlutely nothing. i'm sure i've read somewhere that you have to "adjust your game to the table's texture."

if you are allowed to limp marginals/speculatives, w/ very little threat of a raise, and a high liklihood of multiple callers, it should surprise no one, not even the AK on the button when he gets cracked by 68o.

it aint going to happen often, but dont be shocked when it does.

[Dave Davis]

All right, we are talking about playing suited connectors, not 680. Suited, all right. If the table is loose passive, I limp with them in ep at 25NL. If the table is tight passive, hell, I raise with them in ep! I don't have enough experience with aggressive tables, but at 25NL, you should mostly raise in 6 max ep and limp in full ring in ep, I believe.

[Chopper]

the 68o was just an extreme example that, in fact, happened to MY AK, and the guy was UTG...and raised. a little silly, but what do you expect on a 25 NL table...on a Fri nt? that crap tends to happen on occasion.

however, Dave, how do you typically play them when you limp from ep? i assume rather passively, even when you hit the flop w/ a draw? do you bet out 1/2 pot and try to "block" any bigger bets, or do you check it off and hope nobody bets big behind you?

i find it more comfortable to let the passives bet small, and give me decent odds...rather than to bet into a pot from ep.

late position, its a bit different. for obvious reasons. you can play them passively or more aggressively or even both.

[Dave Davis]

Good question, Chopper. How do I play them in ep? Usually I bet with a strong draw (let's say ace high flush draw) because I want to build the flop so that when I hit, people will more likely be prepared to go broke. No one will go broke in a nothing pot. Plus, people rarely raise on flop if it was limped around preflop cause they figure they have to slowplay big hands to build pot so I am usually not concerned about being raised.

When you are playing 54s and let' s say you flopped flush draw and 3 people called in front of you and you only got a flush draw without any straight possibilites I believe you should fold cause you might be drawing dead.

It differs if you are drawing to the nuts or just some 8 high flush draw.

This is just my opinion, but I am still getting experiences.

[Chopper]

Plus, people rarely raise on flop if it was limped around preflop cause they figure they have to slowplay big hands to build pot so I am usually not concerned about being raised.

i would go so far as to say...people rarely call a bet on the flop if it was limped around...let alone raise.

a bet on the flop really tends to "thin the field," imo (in a limped pot). and that is not what you want with a draw. sure, you want to get paid, but you often find yourself between the perverbial rock and a hard place with a hand like 78s, imo. you need to get bigger draws to fold, if possible at 25 (i dont think it is), but need to have TPTK type hands come along to pay you off.

is it fair to say...?

in a RAISED pot, play oop aggressively with a draw, 2 pair, etc.

in a LIMPED pot, play a little softer...check to an aggressive player in hopes he bets, or lead out SMALL.

[Dave Davis]

in a RAISED pot, play oop aggressively with a draw, 2 pair, etc.

in a LIMPED pot, play a little softer...check to an aggressive player in hopes he bets, or lead out SMALL.

Good advice, but I was talking mainly about passive tables when they usually just check around so I think it might be a better strategy to just bet out and let them call with lower flush draw, building a pot. Against aggressive players, it is certainly better to check cause even if you bet, you might get raised and then you are screwed. What did you mean with lead out small - something like 1/2 of pot? That is what I consider to be small.

Against more experienced opponents, I would probably bet my 8 high flush draw full pot, hoping to force out players with higher flush draws. However, if more people call, it is very hard to play if you hit a draw cause you might be dead and you have to be prepared to fold a flush, which is really hard to do (I don't remember that situation yet).

At NL25, people often continue with any kind of flush draw so you probably won't force people out if you bet your small flush draw, so just bet high draw and check call or fold small ones.

[Chopper]

yes, when i say "bet small" i mean about 1/2 the pot...maybe 2/3. my normal cbet is 3/4 to full pot. however, lately, i have been better at switching the bet sizes up a bit.

i dont think people at 25 (50, either) pay much attention to "reads." i think they mostly play their cards against the board. so, imo, trying to "establish an image" is a bit wasted. they simply dont watch what you raise, 3bet, check the flop with, etc.

what i have had a bit of success with lately, and anyone jump in here, is to "soften" my bets a bit. down to 1/2 to 2/3 whether i hit or not. seems that betting my draws this way doesnt get too expensive when i miss, and i seem to take the same number of pots down right there w/o the risk of a higher bet.

anyone agree?

[Dave Davis]

I feel that 1/2 of pot doesn't accomplish a lot. I just feel that way. You might feel different. I tried the same approach when I read Harrington who suggests 1/2 of pot bet, but this is for tournaments and experienced opponents and I feel it didn't work. 2/3 of pot might be good I guess. I bet 3/4 of pot or full pot almost all the time.

Where do you play and which level?

[Jager]

FWIW... I will raise or call a raise or anything a even a reraise with 54s+, 64s+, 74s+. I do this mostly in position, but will call HU out of the blinds. This month 30,000 hands, I am showing a profit on Small SCs(T9s-54s), Small SGs(J9s-64s), and I would be showing a profit on Small S2Gs(Q9s-74s) if not for a runner runner 4 flush.

This month so far:
SCs:VPIP:85 +792.25
SGs:VPIP:67 +427.35
S2Gs:VPIP:35 -82.88

This has also been my trend for the my last 75,000 hands playing 6 max.

[Chopper]

i play 25 now, but played a lot of 50 6 mos ago at stars. you get on the "rockier" tables (weekday afternoons) and you need to keep the bets on the smaller side to get action, imo. at night, bump it back up because people will still call.

however, whatever you bet...ALWAYS, i mean, ALWAYS make sure you take away the odds to chase starights and flushes. just make sure you are charging appropriately to draw against your pairs and sets.

[Chopper]

Jager, in a full ring game, i cannot "open up" that much. i dont have the stomach or skills. but i will play just about any sc/sg in postion for limps and moderate raises where we have more than a HU pot. oop, i may limp if i am pretty sure the players w/ position on me will let me limp, and i will most definitely steal from hijack+ w/ tight-passives behind me (it gets fun when they call and i cbet w/ air..i love watching a rock fold his AJ+ to my 79s cbetting a T-high board...lol). any raises, however, and i usually wont play oop.

lately they have been profitable for me, too. i may find the numbers and post them...thanks for the input.

[Chopper]

correction. lately may only mean the last hand...lol.

but over the last 250 sc's or so, i am only down $8. or $.04/hand. not bad, i guess. the $8 came from losing a stack w/ QJs. i was drawing to a OE straight flush on a 8s 9s Ts flop and 4 callers. turn was Kd and first to act puts us all-in going into river...and everybody called. i felt i had to gamble here. river was a total blank, and winner showed AXs and took down a pot of nearly 100 bucks at a 25 table because we were all 100 BB's deep at the start.

oh well...imagine how that would change the stats if i had hit?

[pgil]

correction. lately may only mean the last hand...lol.

but over the last 250 sc's or so, i am only down $8. or $.04/hand. not bad, i guess. the $8 came from losing a stack w/ QJs. i was drawing to a OE straight flush on a 8s 9s Ts flop and 4 callers. turn was Kd and first to act puts us all-in going into river...and everybody called. i felt i had to gamble here. river was a total blank, and winner showed AXs and took down a pot of nearly 100 bucks at a 25 table because we were all 100 BB's deep at the start.

oh well...imagine how that would change the stats if i had hit?

how do you think that you have to call here? if it's headsup then sure, but with 4 callers AI on the turn, you have to think you have at most 2 outs. I doubt you were getting odds for the call.

[Chopper]

thats a gambool i will take. i had about $10 to call to win almost a hundy. i know 2-outers need something like 50:1 to call on the river, but there is no guarantee that any of these guys have the flush. i already had the straight. sure, someone prolly did, but if you have read a couple of books they will tell you, "call a little more liberally in big pots." its not like it was TPTK.

dont get me wrong, "by the book," it may have been a bad call, but when the pot is already over $85 at a 25 NL table, 3 others called an all-in push in front of you...how can you fold for 10 more dollars with a draw to the nuts and a semi-made hand? i would prolly do it again, and i am a bit of a nit, usually.

btw, this "scenario" is not entirely accurate, as i cannot find the HH and theres no way i had an OE str8flsh draw w/ QJs here...it had to be QJo and the J had to be the spade...but anyway.

[Dave Davis]

Jager, you play 47s? I ask myself one question a lot. What is actually a difference between 96s and 76s? One is better than other, but why?

Probably a stupid question.

[jackvance]

Jager, you play 47s? I ask myself one question a lot. What is actually a difference between 96s and 76s? One is better than other, but why?

Probably a stupid question.

Well, the advantage of 96 over 76 is that 96 can make a higher pair (9s) or pair a 6 with a higher kicker, but this is pretty much a moot point because you'll never be playing those for value. Or if you make a flush your kicker is slightly higher, but again, not a big deal. Suited connectors (/gappers) you play to hit your straight/flush and 76 can make a lot more straights so I prefer that one.

[Chopper]

another hand for you guys...'

i had no read on villain at this point...can you fold this one? table had not shown a bluff, yet. very passive.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (8 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

MP1 ($13.75)
MP2 ($25.45)
CO ($43.45)
Button ($5.25)
SB ($23.55)
Hero ($16.30)
UTG ($16.75)
UTG+1 ($15.80)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 7, 6. CO posts a blind of $0.35.
UTG calls $0.25, 1 fold, MP1 calls $0.25, MP2 calls $0.25, CO (poster) checks, Button calls $0.25, 1 fold, Hero checks.

Flop: ($1.70) 8, 9, 4 (6 players)
Hero bets $0.75, UTG calls $0.75, MP1 folds, MP2 calls $0.75, CO calls $0.75, Button folds.

turn was Ts.

hero leads out $1. villain (i cant remember if it was the poster) raises to $9. hero..?

i figure QJ limps in this pot. and with the passivity of the hand...easy to draw to this one. against no read, do i give credit to villain?

later, the villain started bullying the table like a drunken maniac...wish i had that one back.

[Fnord]

1. limping SC early is not deceptive, it's just kind of dumb.

In a loose/passive/friendly let's see a flop for the minimum game it can be a routine play. Otherwise, dump the turkey.

[jackvance]

Personally I wouldn't lead out with a draw when 6 players are to the flop. Your draw will only complete 30% of the time over turn+river combined, so I wouldn''t blow up the pot without fold equity before it hits. Also, consider beforehand that half your outs seem to be tainted (ie, your draw hits but you're still haphazard to felt it)

[Chopper]

i guess i dont get this one. if i check here, someone/anyone bets...i have no odds to draw. if i want to play this hand, i must lead and toss out a smallish bet. i use it as a psuedo-block. if someone sees thru it, fine...or if someone hits something and will charge me the rest of the way, fine...i fold, as this is not a hand i want to go far with anyway, unless its cheap.

at any rate, what i find is that against passive, quick-to-fold tables, i have a decent shot to steal it right here, and the str8/babyflush is there to back me up...if a passive decides to call.

i dont do this when there are people i see as very aggressive in the hand.

i understand that against 6 players, i have very little FE (against all of them), but again, that is why i bet it. it is not what is expected of this type of hand. therefore, it most certainly does carry deception, and it is ME that controls the hand unless someone takes the initiative away...and the person that does that usually has me beat.

anyway, not the optimum play, i know. but at these stakes, the "mistake" is so small (i can always drop the hand like an AJ in the face of a flop raise after a cbet if i want to) that it only has to pay off well a few times to make it profitable.

how come (if i use the hand this way) it gets criticized for being stupid when a "whiffed" AK that cbets, gets raised and drops is considered a "good laydown" or "way to get away cheap, man." it shouldnt matter what you get away cheap with, as long as you dont turn a small mistake into a large one...right?

[zenbitz]

consider that calling flop bet with QJ is pretty loose, would only have gutshot + overs, plus your turn bet was weak. I would probably just call the turn raise. I am not going to gleefully get a/i on the river, but I am probably never folding either.

Oh, and I think your flop bet is fine on weak tables.

[Chopper]

consider that calling flop bet with QJ is pretty loose, would only have gutshot + overs, plus your turn bet was weak. I would probably just call the turn raise. I am not going to gleefully get a/i on the river, but I am probably never folding either.

Oh, and I think your flop bet is fine on weak tables.

what did you mean that "...turn bet was weak." ?? what would that indicate to you when i did that? a monster? or weakness? consider that you prolly have no reads on me, either.

that said, 2 overs and a gutshot is 10 outs, no? he had the odds. i would not call that loose.

[Jager]

Jager, you play 47s? I ask myself one question a lot. What is actually a difference between 96s and 76s? One is better than other, but why?

Probably a stupid question.

I will open with 74s from the CO/BT, and will raise behind weak limpers. I try not to let them see cheap flops. The difference between 96s and 76s is that 76 makes stronger str8's. For example 96 makes only 1 nut str8 on a 875 board. A 76 makes a nut str8 on a 345, 458, and 589 board. Neither hand will hold very well as any 1 pair, and if your up against another flush you wil probably lose with both hands.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Yeah of course call SC's UTG in a really passive game.

But Jager, your play with SC's is concerning. You need to bluff a lot for these to be profitable.

[jackvance]

I think you're missing some things in your reasoning here:

- the difference between AJ who cbet or a sc on a draw is that with a sc you really want to see the turn and river because you typically have 8 (straight draw) or 9 (flush draw) outs to a very strong hand. AJ who missed the flop on the other hand has 6 outs to a one pair hand. So there is a big difference between a cbet and betting a draw.

- betting a draw only to get called by top/middle/bottom pair is a -EV play imho. The reason people do this at higher stakes is because they need to make their game less transparant, so they'll play their draws the same way as their monsters. This means they actually have FE, which is crucial in making the play of betting/raising on a draw +EV. (just do the EV calculation and you can verify this easily) And at 25NL, there is really no need to obfuscate yor hand strength like that. People aren't paying attention to your lines too much, they just care about their own hand. Just check/call your draws on tables like this is more +EV than playing them aggressively, atleast in my experience. (by this I mean, I had to stop betting/raising my draws because I was seriously leaking money that way)

- you talk about getting priced off of your draw if you don't bet. Well, I typically call a PSB on the flop on a draw. I might not have pot odds, but implied odds can make up for this. If your opponent is going to shut down and not pay another dime every time your draw hits, then you need pot odds to call. If he's gonna pay more on the river, then you can call more loosely and it's still +EV. Add to this other ways of making revenue from a draw even if it misses, ie betting/raising your opponent off of his hand on the river.. a bit risky on lower stakes, but I do this now and then when it really looks like they are weak.

- draws I'm more inclined to play aggressively are the "bigger draws"
where you have even more outs. Typically these are: a flush draw+ open ended straight draw, flush draw+gut shot, flush draw+pair (so you have 5 extra outs to make 2p or trips), flush draw+overs (if you're drawing with say AKs suited, you have 6 outs to TPTK which might very well give you the best hand).

i guess i dont get this one. if i check here, someone/anyone bets...i have no odds to draw. if i want to play this hand, i must lead and toss out a smallish bet. i use it as a psuedo-block. if someone sees thru it, fine...or if someone hits something and will charge me the rest of the way, fine...i fold, as this is not a hand i want to go far with anyway, unless its cheap.

at any rate, what i find is that against passive, quick-to-fold tables, i have a decent shot to steal it right here, and the str8/babyflush is there to back me up...if a passive decides to call.

i dont do this when there are people i see as very aggressive in the hand.

i understand that against 6 players, i have very little FE (against all of them), but again, that is why i bet it. it is not what is expected of this type of hand. therefore, it most certainly does carry deception, and it is ME that controls the hand unless someone takes the initiative away...and the person that does that usually has me beat.

anyway, not the optimum play, i know. but at these stakes, the "mistake" is so small (i can always drop the hand like an AJ in the face of a flop raise after a cbet if i want to) that it only has to pay off well a few times to make it profitable.

how come (if i use the hand this way) it gets criticized for being stupid when a "whiffed" AK that cbets, gets raised and drops is considered a "good laydown" or "way to get away cheap, man." it shouldnt matter what you get away cheap with, as long as you dont turn a small mistake into a large one...right?

[Chopper]

2 debatable things about the comment, imo.

1) deception is still critical at lower stakes. there are those who do not think, true, but there are those that DO think, as well. who knows which is which? ASSUMING that most players do not think, at any level, imo, is -EV.

2) check/call your flushes and "connected" str8s all you want to, and at any level, you will NOT get paid when your hand comes in, against the typical online player. check the flush card on the turn and bet the river, and you still get a fold more than 75% of the time, no matter how you play your draw.

the move to bet your draw, whether it be small or large, is to build the pot to "price in your draw." much like in limit. granted, this absolutely will not work above 25 or maybe 50, imo, because someone will raise your butt of just to be mean.

i was thinking earlier that the "technique" i showed here was from experience with limit, and i supplanted it into my NL game. so, i shouldnt expect it to be "received well" in a NL forum. all i'm saying, is it works for me enough to be profitable.

and as for the "leaking money" while betting draws...did you try it longer than a week?

not trying to be insulting...i just see myself "try" something for 2500 hands, then say, "that doesnt work." then, hop in the forums and start telling people their sample size is too small.

something about me being the pot, and calling the kettle black. or the whole, "do as i say..." advice. lol.

[jackvance]

2 debatable things about the comment, imo.

1) deception is still critical at lower stakes. there are those who do not think, true, but there are those that DO think, as well. who knows which is which? ASSUMING that most players do not think, at any level, imo, is -EV.

Nah, in 2 orbits it becomes clear who the thinkers are (if there are any at all) that you have to play some poker with, the rest is just ABC. That's enough to kill these stakes at 10-20 ptBB/100.

2) check/call your flushes and "connected" str8s all you want to, and at any level, you will NOT get paid when your hand comes in, against the typical online player. check the flush card on the turn and bet the river, and you still get a fold more than 75% of the time, no matter how you play your draw.

Doesn't really matter. The play just has to be +EV for you. You don't need to play huge pots with every draw you flop. Also in NL your opponents can also easily kill your drawing odds whereas in LHE this is nigh impossible (I think). For example villain is on 2p, you bet he raises you big. Pretty quickly you can become pot committed to felt your 30% eqity draw, whereas if you check/call the pot stays under control.

the move to bet your draw, whether it be small or large, is to build the pot to "price in your draw." much like in limit.

I find that a weird line of thinking. The reason to bet a draw is that x% of the time you win the pot right there (fold equity), and if they call, you have y% to still win the hand because of your draw. If you calculate this in practice, you'll see that the height of the +EV hinges on the height of your FE.

and as for the "leaking money" while betting draws...did you try it longer than a week?

not trying to be insulting...i just see myself "try" something for 2500 hands, then say, "that doesnt work." then, hop in the forums and start telling people their sample size is too small.

I dunno, if you need to test everything for a decent sample size you'll be a fish forever I think. Some things you can just logically deduce to be bad. Let's say you KNOW for a fact that you'll be called on the flop by top or middle pair any kicker, regardless. Or even bottom pair, or a wiffed AK who can't fold but still has you beat. If you know this, why would you bet anything other than hands that beat this range? Bet your TPHK, 2p+.. betting a draw that has 30% equity when you're getting called down this light should be fairly obviously -EV, right?..

Higher stakes, you don't have this. So you tune your game so that your bets/raises are monsters x% of the time, draws y% and bluffs z%.. in such a way that it is never profitable for your opponent to call you down. That is how the high stakes players on FTR/2+2 explain it.

Well this is my reasoning atleast, not the gospel obv.

[Chopper]

now thats the kind of post i look for. thank you.

i dont ever claim to be the "authority," but will throw off-the-wall thinking out there to see someone, actually defend themselves from the standpoint of "teaching others."

dont get me wrong, i think my idea works, but you offer great food for thought.

and if you can still (post regs) crush the 25's at 10-20/100, then you are a lot better than i. i only hit 8-9 at the higher end of my rushes. over 5k hands i can hold 10+, but that quickly settles back down.

thanks again.

[jackvance]

Heh, np. I actually just started playing poker again after a lapse of two or so months. Played two sessions (first prima then FT) for a total of 10 hours and had a nice run, so I can't talk about real winrates but my impression is that all seems as before.

And I'm not a very good poker player to be honest. Too unstable. I think I have a decent grasp of the theory but never put in enough time and always had to cash out because poker was semi supporting me, so I never made it above 50NL. So I'm a low stakes nit/grinder and I'd get murdered at higher stakes lol..

[Chopper]

i play low stuff too, obviously. so, are you saying you cant sustain that win rate? or, you have too few hands, and that is what you run as of right now?

[jackvance]

I think I ran at 15-20 on 10NL and 10-15 on 20/25NL. 50NL I was winning but don't know my winrate (the numbers are skewed because my friend played here quite a bit and murdered my BR). I started today with $125 on prima and $30 (lol) on FT, so I nearly doubled my roll today. What my current real winrate is, we'll see in some weeks. I really hope I can find it in me to put in enough hours per day to get to 100NL fast. Probably not if the past is any indication..

[pgil]

I think if you are playing on a very passive table then betting your draws is a good thing regardless of the stakes. Obviously this is not the case if the table is full of passive calling stations, and probably not the best idea to semi-bluff into 6 players, but still a good idea overall.

The only reason I don't bet more draws is the fear of the check-raise. if you are on a table full of passive players, there is virtually no possibility of a check-raise, and therefore no reason to avoid betting your draws.

even a small amount of FE added into the mix can add up over time.

[Dave Davis]

You explained it well, pgil. Passive tables - bet your draws to put money in the pot. I see we agree in this. This concept comes from limit, I know. I never loved limit, but before I got addicted to no limit, I studied it for a while and the concept there is: when you have a draw, put as much money into the pot as possible. How this transfers to no limit, is another question.

[zenbitz]

consider that calling flop bet with QJ is pretty loose, would only have gutshot + overs, plus your turn bet was weak. I would probably just call the turn raise. I am not going to gleefully get a/i on the river, but I am probably never folding either.

Oh, and I think your flop bet is fine on weak tables.

what did you mean that "...turn bet was weak." ?? what would that indicate to you when i did that? a monster? or weakness? consider that you prolly have no reads on me, either

Well, lets assume he thinks you have nothing or a monster, and raises to find out! I think someone might do this with alot more than QJ, which is the only hand that beats you. The weaker you act, the more likely someone is going to try to move you off you hand.

To put it another way - you are underrepping your straight here, so you should probably call the raise. I wouldn't necessarily shove over or anything... (some people might)

that said, 2 overs and a gutshot is 10 outs, no? he had the odds. i would not call that loose.

Only if his overs are good (and they weren't) ... and I wouldn't think they were with so many people seeing the flop. It's not a terrible call.

[jackvance]

I really don't see the merit of betting a draw if there are more than 2 other people in the pot. Heads-up I bet them close to 100% of the time, but in a family pot it's bad play imho. I have a HH from today's session to illustrate what I mean:

(note, normally I don't open limp A2s, and I certainly don't call raises with it.. but I was seriously tilted at this point. Even though I'm up $35 today, I felt like I was really colddecked because my aces just couldn't hold up for the life of them - I checked PT and today my biggest losers were AA and KK, in that order! I just want to make the roll to move up quickly and my big hands failing me is such a set back so I was tilting bad.. aaaanyway..)

** Game ID 1147105464 starting - 2007-01-17 18:44:50
** Hellefisk [Hold em] (0.05|0.10 No Limit - Cash Game) Real Money
- HERO sitting in seat 1 with $7.55
- sesiran sitting in seat 2 with $2.50
- Dropthekick sitting in seat 3 with $10.61
- attention750 sitting in seat 4 with $3.70 [Dealer]
- trikk777 sitting in seat 5 with $2.10
- GK33 sitting in seat 6 with $5.77
trikk777 posted the small blind - $0.05
GK33 posted the big blind - $0.10
** Dealing card to HERO: Ace of Clubs, 2 of Clubs
HERO called - $0.10
sesiran called - $0.10
Dropthekick called - $0.10
attention750 called - $0.10
trikk777 called - $0.10
GK33 bet - $0.30
HERO called - $0.30
sesiran called - $0.30
Dropthekick called - $0.30
attention750 called - $0.30
trikk777 folded
** Dealing the flop: 10 of Clubs, 3 of Hearts, 4 of Clubs
GK33 checked
HERO checked
sesiran checked
Dropthekick bet - $0.80
attention750 called - $0.80
GK33 folded
HERO called - $0.80
sesiran folded
** Dealing the turn: 7 of Clubs
HERO checked
Dropthekick bet - $2.00
attention750 called - $2.00
HERO raised - $4.00 (=> one of the few instances a minraise is justified imo)
Dropthekick called - $4.00
attention750 went all-in - $0.60
** Dealing the river: 8 of Hearts
HERO went all-in - $2.45
Dropthekick called - $2.45
HERO shows: Ace of Clubs, 2 of Clubs
Dropthekick mucks:
attention750 mucks:
HERO wins $11.50 from the main pot
HERO wins $19.20 from side pot 1

So I flop a pretty big draw (flush draw+ gutshot) but if I bet it here, I'm 100% sure to get called by a 1 pair or better hand with 5 people seeing the flop. They might also whiff on me on later streets if my draw hits because their hand is weak. If I check, weakish paired hands are probably not betting. Now, if someone has a bigger hand, I'm going to get raised on the flop and my draw is suddenly becoming very expensive, ie I'll probably have to felt it without knowing if I hit or not.

But if I check, the bigger hand will bet and I can call.. and when the pot grows, it'll become very hard for them to get away from their stronger hand if my draw hits, even the "obvious" flushdraw. Chopper I don't think it's correct when you say people will always fold (or 75%) when your flush draw completes.. if the pot is big enough they often can't get away from it anyway, while I can still easily get away from my hand if I miss without having to invest my entire stack.

Thoughts?

[martindcx1e]

...and when the pot grows, it'll become very hard for them to get away from their stronger hand if my draw hits, even the "obvious" flushdraw. Chopper I don't think it's correct when you say people will always fold (or 75%) when your flush draw completes.. if the pot is big enough they often can't get away from it anyway...

no. it's way easy, even for bad players, to get away when a flush draw completes in a limped multiway pot. this is wishful thinking i'm pretty sure.

[jackvance]

...and when the pot grows, it'll become very hard for them to get away from their stronger hand if my draw hits, even the "obvious" flushdraw. Chopper I don't think it's correct when you say people will always fold (or 75%) when your flush draw completes.. if the pot is big enough they often can't get away from it anyway...

no. it's way easy, even for bad players, to get away when a flush draw completes in a limped multiway pot. this is wishful thinking i'm pretty sure.

I routinely valuebet my hands on the river even if a flush is out and still get called by worse hands..

[Chopper]

my guess is that they were "committed" to this pot. especially, by the river. the minraise was moot here, imo, because the pot is pretty big. i think if you raise all-in on THIS turn with THESE players in THIS hand, they still call. i bet this is one of the 25% hands that doesnt fold.

the minraise is a great weapon on the flop when you have a draw, 2+ other playeres and the pot is smallish...or if you hit your set on a dry board.

what did they have? one of these players may be hoping his TP or 2 pair holds up, but my guess is one, if not both, had a set and/or a weaker flush. what do you do when, if you minraise, and the board pairs on the river, and your villain leads out the $3? you still call, but how confident are you in your flush?

it seems like you have my sydrome; tell others to play ABC poker and get caught up in a little FPS (fancy play syndrome) yourself...especially at lower stakes. imo, slam the turn. remember, you are at a 10 NL table. where is the need to "build the pot?" i read somewhere on FTR...at smaller stakes, OVERBET THE NUTS!!

that said, i feel there is ALWAYS the need to outhink the other guy, so i think you played the hand better than i would have, but i think our outcomes would have been the same.

[martindcx1e]

...and when the pot grows, it'll become very hard for them to get away from their stronger hand if my draw hits, even the "obvious" flushdraw. Chopper I don't think it's correct when you say people will always fold (or 75%) when your flush draw completes.. if the pot is big enough they often can't get away from it anyway...

no. it's way easy, even for bad players, to get away when a flush draw completes in a limped multiway pot. this is wishful thinking i'm pretty sure.

I routinely valuebet my hands on the river even if a flush is out and still get called by worse hands..

ok. i assumed you were talking about "getting paid" on your flushes which is hard to believe. yes, you can value bet bad players to death with your flushes.

[jackvance]

where do you see fancy play? I think this is ABC.

[Chopper]

just a minraise instead of the regular 3X his bet, etc. and the ensuing analysis of the thought process (saying that it is one of the few justified min raises).

to me, that means you are "thinking." too much...not necessarily. but when you think of slowing down, or in this case not pushing as hard as you usually do, imo, you invite the dreaded suckout...like the paired board. again, you may still be good there, but you could also have lost a pot you should have won. again, who knows.

to me, abc means "by the book," and i havent seen a book, article, or anything else recommend min-raising (not that there isnt an appropriate time, it just isnt abc play...its fancier than abc, if a thinking player is using it for a purpose). that is all i meant.

correct me if i am wrong, but if the board paired, and you got showed a full house, you would kick yourself for the minraise on the turn.

[jackvance]

correct me if i am wrong, but if the board paired, and you got showed a full house, you would kick yourself for the minraise on the turn.

To be honest, I don't think I even looked at what the river was when I shoved. Like you said earlier, shoving the turn or minraise+lead/shove is basically the exact same thing. I just felt at the time there was like a tiny greater chance to get his stack with a minraise. Basically it's 100% pot committing - noone is gonna fold $2 more on a $17 pot - for both me and him. I've played 5k hands now and minraised 5 times tops. I actually should probably do it more lol..

[Chopper]

agreed. lol.