Flopped Flush Nearing the Bubble

Anyone not playing this like you want all the chips in? Looking to play a smaller pot?

We have an ok stack approaching the money bubble (about 15 off).

Full Tilt Poker Game #14502974283: $19,500 Guarantee (Rebuy) (106474235), Table 5 - 300/600 Ante 75 - No Limit Hold'em - 19:50:31 ET - 2009/09/05
Seat 1: Amcboarder (51,692)
Seat 2: Indiscreet (34,836)
Seat 3: HR Dub (31,143)
Seat 4: Poostabber19 (15,272)
Seat 5: BLUEberLEEZ (31,095)
Seat 6: camisdad77 (81,638)
Seat 7: Wetts1012 (32,003)
Seat 8: MARS114 (21,074)
Amcboarder antes 75
Indiscreet antes 75
HR Dub antes 75
Poostabber19 antes 75
BLUEberLEEZ antes 75
camisdad77 antes 75
Wetts1012 antes 75
MARS114 antes 75
HR Dub posts the small blind of 300
Poostabber19 posts the big blind of 600
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Wetts1012 [5d 6d]
BLUEberLEEZ folds
camisdad77 calls 600
Wetts1012 raises to 2,120
MARS114 folds
Amcboarder folds
Indiscreet folds
HR Dub folds
Poostabber19 folds
camisdad77 calls 1,520
*** FLOP *** [3d Td 4d]
camisdad77 checks
Wetts1012 bets 3,155
camisdad77 raises to 6,310
Wetts1012 calls 3,155
*** TURN *** [3d Td 4d] [9s]
camisdad77 bets 8,400
Wetts1012 raises to 23,498, and is all in
camisdad77 calls 15,098
Wetts1012 shows [5d 6d]
camisdad77 shows [Qd Jd]
*** RIVER *** [3d Td 4d 9s] [9d]
Wetts1012 shows a flush, Ten high
camisdad77 shows a flush, Queen high
camisdad77 wins the pot (65,356) with a flush, Queen high
Wetts1012 stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 65,356 | Rake 0
Board: [3d Td 4d 9s 9d]
Seat 1: Amcboarder folded before the Flop
Seat 2: Indiscreet (button) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: HR Dub (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 4: Poostabber19 (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 5: BLUEberLEEZ folded before the Flop
Seat 6: camisdad77 showed [Qd Jd] and won (65,356) with a flush, Queen high
Seat 7: Wetts1012 showed [5d 6d] and lost with a flush, Ten high
Seat 8: MARS114 folded before the Flop
«1

Comments

  • Flopped flush vs another flopped flush... kinda like set over set, just doesn't happen often enough to fold I think, especially headsup. Plus you have the redraws to the str8 flush... Course I'm much more of a live donkey that online.. lol,,,, need you to show me how you do so well online with all these FT's.
  • you got me man... in an unraised pot you might get away from that ... but not there... lotta people like seeing straight flush draws. ;)
  • Are you using any software (tournament indicator) or pokertracker HUD with tournaments? I think that would be the only way you could get away from this hand....as played its a cooler...
  • i generally like to get to the turn cheap as the A K or Q usually holds on or goes all in if i make a post flop bet, and i like to see a non four flush card because i can then push them off the turn or a least get a worse draw set up for them. but in this case it wouldn't matter, i couldn't get off this hand.

    but playing suited connector with the earlier limper is something i refrain from most of the time. i suppose he was doing it a lot though.
  • I dont know how you can get away....
    wtf is up with villian, calling a big raise OOP with QJ.... so bad....
    Anyway, you played your suited connector in position as if you rep'd a big hand.
    You flopped a flush and a SFD, you're playing for deception and you could hardly flop bigger, are you really going to fold?

    His limp call is preflop is weak. Low PPs, Suited connectors, broadway cards etc. and the ONLY thing that beats you is a higher flush.

    I think you played it well, smooth calling his bet, getting him to bet while drawing dead with hands like KT etc. but I much prefer a 3bet on the flop as villian obviously doesn't like folding here. I'd mostly 3bet the flop here, something like 11000-12000 that is easy for villian to call but allows you to ship the turn.
  • darbday wrote: »
    i generally like to get to the turn cheap as the A K or Q usually holds on or goes all in if i make a post flop bet, and i like to see a non four flush card because i can then push them off the turn or a least get a worse draw set up for them. but in this case it wouldn't matter, i couldn't get off this hand.

    but playing suited connector with the earlier limper is something i refrain from most of the time. i suppose he was doing it a lot though.

    THis is losing poker at its finest.
  • syphilaids wrote: »
    THis is losing poker at its finest.

    Not fair at all unless you tell me why.

    and yes i try to to play a small pot, small ball poker with suited connectors and i still think its not a good idea to do it when your not the first into the pot...but only cause daniel says so....
  • darbday wrote: »
    i generally like to get to the turn cheap as the A K or Q usually holds on or goes all in if i make a post flop bet, and i like to see a non four flush card because i can then push them off the turn or a least get a worse draw set up for them. but in this case it wouldn't matter, i couldn't get off this hand.

    but playing suited connector with the earlier limper is something i refrain from most of the time. i suppose he was doing it a lot though.

    I don't think we should be looking at the hand in the situation but rather how the hand was rep'd. He basically 3-bets in position and gets limp-called. I think the hand was disguised very well and if he doesn't hit this board he can easily C-bet and get villian to fold most hands, or when he hits a monster flop like this he will get paid.

    Knowing very well that villian has been active (limping/playing a lot of pots) has to put him on the defensive because he knows (or should know) that his range is most likely far behind that of someone who is opening with a 3-bet, especially with effective stacks its not likely he is going to try to bluff hero out of the pot unless he is totally sure hero didn't hit the board.
  • darbday wrote: »
    i generally like to get to the turn cheap as the A K or Q usually holds on or goes all in if i make a post flop bet, and i like to see a non four flush card because i can then push them off the turn or a least get a worse draw set up for them. but in this case it wouldn't matter, i couldn't get off this hand.

    but playing suited connector with the earlier limper is something i refrain from most of the time. i suppose he was doing it a lot though.

    Why do you want him to see a cheap turn? If he holds a higher diamond you want him to PAY. We flopped HUGE, We need to ask how all the money gets in the pot. Yes, A high FD will probably stay around, but thats where your money is. We know where 5 diamonds are, we put him on 1, that means he has 7 diamonds in the deck, and only a approx. a 28% fo hitting by the river. Are we happy if he shoves the flop? oh yeah. Are we happy if he calls a big bet on the flop/turn? Absolutely. Are we happy to give him a free chance to suck out? Hell no. We flop a flush approx. 1/200 times, so when we do, we need to get paid.

    I dont know why you want to push him off the turn. I'd love a call from a guy whose drawing to a 14% chance of winning, providing I denied him odds to call (ie a half pot bet)

    If you keep giving free cards due to the fear of the suck out, you're losing value and he's gaining. The way we make money at poker is making our opponents make mistakes.

    Sklansky said it best. If all the cards were open from preflop, and we played the same way, we gain. If we played differently knowing his hole cards, villian gains. and vice versa.
  • syphilaids wrote: »
    Sklansky said it best. If all the cards were open from preflop, and we played the same way, we gain. If we played differently knowing his hole cards, villian gains. and vice versa.


    so buddy has you crushed preflop, you know this so you three bet him, after the flop you go all in on a 2 outer.....


    no doubt if we could see the hole cards we would have played this differently.
  • DUDE I was referring to your checking back a flush cause you're scared of a higher flush draw drawing out on you. You WANT the higher FD to call your raise. You're way ahead, and if he hits a higher flush we're not paying him off. It's a lose-lose situation for him. You need to understand this concept if you want to become a winning poker player.

    Back to yoru comment. OBviously we fold if we knew he had a flush, but his range is so wide that 99% of the time we're ahead. Villian is clearly a bad player for calling a large raise OOp with QJ.
  • thread is tl;dr

    I think you played this brilliantly and got unlucky.
  • tl dr? im new to this whats it mean
  • syphilaids wrote: »
    tl dr? im new to this whats it mean

    Literally, "Too long; didn't read"

    And Kristy did read the thread, she reads everything....
  • compuease wrote: »
    Literally, "Too long; didn't read"

    And Kristy did read the thread, she reads everything....

    Sorta.
    I skimmed the Darbday stuff.

    Blackmagicz said the only other thing I thought in post 4(ish)
  • syphilaids wrote: »
    DUDE I was referring to your checking back a flush cause you're scared of a higher flush draw drawing out on you. You WANT the higher FD to call your raise. You're way ahead, and if he hits a higher flush we're not paying him off. It's a lose-lose situation for him. You need to understand this concept if you want to become a winning poker player.

    Back to yoru comment. OBviously we fold if we knew he had a flush, but his range is so wide that 99% of the time we're ahead. Villian is clearly a bad player for calling a large raise OOp with QJ.

    i like how im dude and your buddy.

    i play this pot small, and consider folding. this is something i was asking about earlier this year after reading about small ball....you have to play small pots if you don't have the absoulute nuts, if your gonna pull a stunt like this. its a good way to trap people but because you have him on atc (which means you don't have a clue what he has) it can be suicide if your going all in with the 2nd best hand or less. To me this is a small ball play and to be played with a small pot for tournament survival sake.


    i am a winning poker player???
  • i just realized you can put these into a hand replayer.......more money for me
  • compuease wrote: »
    Literally, "Too long; didn't read"

    And Kristy did read the thread, she reads everything....


    FAIL . . . everybody knows Kristy absorbs CPF by osmosis. Don't worry fed, someone will explain the big words later . . .
  • darbday wrote: »

    i play this pot small, and consider folding. this is something i was asking about earlier this year after reading about small ball....you have to play small pots if you don't have the absoulute nuts, if your gonna pull a stunt like this. its a good way to trap people but because you have him on atc (which means you don't have a clue what he has) it can be suicide if your going all in with the 2nd best hand or less. To me this is a small ball play and to be played with a small pot for tournament survival sake.


    *sigh* Milo and Compuease read it..so I gave them the benefit of the doubt..

    The quoted post made my brain, eyes, and heart bleed. Darbday, I've seen your other stuff and I get that you're a new player trying to learn. So shut up and learn!

    To respond to some of the points you made with which I disagree:
    1. It doesn't matter that Hero was "crushed" pf, it matters that villian was too weak to feel comfortable in pot with the raise and was oop. GJ wetts.
    2. A flopped flush in a tourney v. one player is the time to try to make some money. GJ Wetts.
    3. If you fold this you're wayyyy too tight. You're only thinking that you might be able to because you've seen the result and are now in some retrospective "looks like a duck, sounds like a duck" line of thought. You wouldn't fold it, I'd bet my panties. (if I were wearing any) There are all sorts of 'strong' hands that are losing to our flush, that the villian could be playing like this.

    So...GJ Wetts;
    Kristy_Sea wrote:
    I think you played this brilliantly and got unlucky.
  • Kristy_Sea wrote: »
    You wouldn't fold it, I'd bet my panties.

    ;

    +1
  • Kristy_Sea wrote: »
    *sigh* Milo and Compuease read it..so I gave them the benefit of the doubt..

    The quoted post made my brain, eyes, and heart bleed. Darbday, I've seen your other stuff and I get that you're a new player trying to learn. So shut up and learn!

    To respond to some of the points you made with which I disagree:
    1. It doesn't matter that Hero was "crushed" pf, it matters that villian was too weak to feel comfortable in pot with the raise and was oop. GJ wetts.
    2. A flopped flush in a tourney v. one player is the time to try to make some money. GJ Wetts.
    3. If you fold this you're wayyyy too tight. You're only thinking that you might be able to because you've seen the result and are now in some retrospective "looks like a duck, sounds like a duck" line of thought. You wouldn't fold it, I'd bet my panties. (if I were wearing any) There are all sorts of 'strong' hands that are losing to our flush, that the villian could be playing like this.

    So...GJ Wetts;

    my lady,

    i don't think i was talking about the villian has him crushed preflop....i think you mean about 2nd best hand and that is talking about post flop, he hit a hand but there are many that could beat it, he hasn't narrowed the field at all and hes just guessing. but im just noting i wasn't talking pf.

    I strive not to put myself in this predicament....as for the villian he has 90M right? If thats right then he can play these pots if he believes he has better post flop play, but id like to hear whether wetts thought he was good or bad and what this guy placed. either way wetts could do well with straightforward poker at this point so why risk all in with less than the nuts.

    yes you were wearing panties, 81/19

    i want to 'play' 'poker' with you <<<theres no innuendo there <<<< i don't really know what innuendo means.






    i don't even know what i think


    and thx for learning me, its why im here.
  • as for the villian point of view. i limp in with suited connectors oop but i have a huge stack and people are playing tight and arguably weak, wetts bets and im looking at 1560 to win 4220, plus implied odds if i feel im good. the flop comes a monster by me, im only beat by Ad and another diamond but i have him on kk aa maybe qq. i start to slow play and bet him off/make him pay for his Ad flush draw, and he gives me all his money i cal call and i have him covered, i win and move towards the top of the ladder.....

    or is it just to easy 'after the fact'
  • darbday wrote: »
    my lady,


    see underlined: bad read you. ;)

    darbday wrote: »
    i don't think i was talking about the villian has him crushed preflop....
    darbday wrote: »
    so buddy has you crushed preflop

    orlyowl.jpg


    darbday wrote: »
    i think you mean about 2nd best hand and that is talking about post flop, he hit a hand but there are many that could beat it, he hasn't narrowed the field at all and hes just guessing. but im just noting i wasn't talking pf.

    "Just guessing" as contrasted to super-users who 100% know? What the hell do you think poker is? Of all the hands in the villian's range..On 10/9s+ qjo+ 22+ there are like 10 hands that beat us, not "many"

    So villian is winning 10/200 (off the top of my head) when the flop is checked to hero, we know that.

    Hero bets, and gets minraised...hmm time to narrow some more, noting:
    Check/min-raising is pretty lame..this opponent officially sucks at poker.. now what has he got here?

    Those 10 are still in the mix, overs with Ad or Kd are pretty gay to check min raise, but villian sucks balls as we've established...I'm not prepared to rule them out..just to lesson the incidence, sets make a lot of sense here, overpairs with a diamond, even over pairs in general... I again lower the incidence of qq with or without qd, as people never limp it pf. I could go on..but I'm bored and you get the gist.

    So we've narrowed villain's range again..and your claim that Wetts "hasn't narrowed the field" and is "just guessing" continues to be wrong.

    The best way to get more chips into this pot is to call the min-raise, and upon doing that..the rest of the hand plays itself. Let's give ourselves at least 30 villain-hands that make sense (I think it is higher, but I'm spotting you for the turn bet which again narrows the villian's range.. we'll err in your favour) so 30/40 we're winning our call makes the pot 17k-ish (and yes, when we're this far ahead we want more chips in. NOT a debate) we've got 23k back and go broke on the turn. So be it.

    This is fine play against the nittiest must unrealistic villain-range. Start throwing in the "Harrington 10%" (you did mention 'm') after all that or some straight up bad play for draws and this becomes a complete no brainer.

    darbday wrote: »
    I strive not to put myself in this predicament....as for the villian he has 90M right? If thats right then he can play these pots if he believes he has better post flop play, but id like to hear whether wetts thought he was good or bad and what this guy placed. either way wetts could do well with straightforward poker at this point so why risk all in with less than the nuts.

    I'm hanging out with my fam and have been idly attacking this in the moments inbetween..but even half-assed this hand is ez game. Waiting for the nuts, or limiting yourself to ABC poker (as you suggested) is donktastic.
    Work on your self-confidence and handling edges better.
    darbday wrote: »
    yes you were wearing panties, 81/19

    Another bad read by you, I wasn't- then or now. ;)
  • Poker chix are soooo hawt . . . :D

    especially when they know more than me. Will you be my guru?

    If yes, I can still wear panties, right?
  • i have only read up to your flopped flush and str8 flush draw, all in!! if ya lose its un lucky.
  • Milo wrote: »
    If yes, I can still wear panties, right?

    It seems like someone should. ;)
  • Oh, goodie . . .
  • Kristy_Sea wrote: »


    see underlined: bad read you. ;)

    orlyowl.jpg
    "Just guessing" as contrasted to super-users who 100% know? What the hell do you think poker is? Of all the hands in the villian's range..On 10/9s+ qjo+ 22+ there are like 10 hands that beat us, not "many"

    So villian is winning 10/200 (off the top of my head) when the flop is checked to hero, we know that.

    Hero bets, and gets minraised...hmm time to narrow some more, noting:
    Check/min-raising is pretty lame..this opponent officially sucks at poker.. now what has he got here?

    Those 10 are still in the mix, overs with Ad or Kd are pretty gay to check min raise, but villian sucks balls as we've established...I'm not prepared to rule them out..just to lesson the incidence, sets make a lot of sense here, overpairs with a diamond, even over pairs in general... I again lower the incidence of qq with or without qd, as people never limp it pf. I could go on..but I'm bored and you get the gist.

    So we've narrowed villain's range again..and your claim that Wetts "hasn't narrowed the field" and is "just guessing" continues to be wrong.

    The best way to get more chips into this pot is to call the min-raise, and upon doing that..the rest of the hand plays itself. Let's give ourselves at least 30 villain-hands that make sense (I think it is higher, but I'm spotting you for the turn bet which again narrows the villian's range.. we'll err in your favour) so 30/40 we're winning our call makes the pot 17k-ish (and yes, when we're this far ahead we want more chips in. NOT a debate) we've got 23k back and go broke on the turn. So be it.

    This is fine play against the nittiest must unrealistic villain-range. Start throwing in the "Harrington 10%" (you did mention 'm') after all that or some straight up bad play for draws and this becomes a complete no brainer.

    I'm hanging out with my fam and have been idly attacking this in the moments inbetween..but even half-assed this hand is ez game. Waiting for the nuts, or limiting yourself to ABC poker (as you suggested) is donktastic.
    Work on your self-confidence and handling edges better.



    Another bad read by you, I wasn't- then or now. ;)

    my lady <<<<< yeah i was bluffin

    about the preflop crushed stuff....you took that outa context i didn't say what you think i said <<<<< so bad form!

    i understand whats going on here but i just think that there was no need for it. don't we generally feel you shouldn't mess with the big stacks when your big stacked yourself?


    to me 56 suited is a small ball hand and and i would have played it with a small pot.


    this all hurt my head soo much...


    oh ya and kristy read MY posts!!!
  • darbday wrote: »
    i understand whats going on here but i just think that there was no need for it. don't we generally feel you shouldn't mess with the big stacks when your big stacked yourself?


    to me 56 suited is a small ball hand and and i would have played it with a small pot.

    nah, you don't understand it..let me help you out with a lil bit of strat..

    You need to acqure ALL of the chips to do something that is called "WINNING" ;)

    Srsly though, you're all over the map and not really making any sense. You chastised Wetts for getting into this hand and not gaining further information..now once I've shown you that he had gotten LOTS of info...you change your position and are now apparently advocating him being in a pot doing no betting and gaining none of that 'info' you wanted 5 posts ago. You're also advocating letting your opponent draw for cheap

    ..you want to take a guess as to how many of those aforementioned hands in his range contain a bigger diamond than ours? :)

    And then once you do that, we'll figure out how likely his possible set fills up..and then we'll realize how much more of a danger those two things are v. the chances of him having ALSO flopped a flush
    ..and we'll hug and just laugh and laugh that we ever disagreed about this at all.






    darbday wrote:
    oh ya and kristy read MY posts!!!

    I did, and I understand them completely. Can you say that about mine?


    Imo this is why hand analysis is so gay, nobody ever entertains the notion that they are wrong, or if not wrong..at least that there might be another greater way to play something.

    Wetts play>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than your suggested play. You've offered nothing that proves otherwise. (nope, nittiness, card dependency and fear or undue respect for your stack are NOT a valid argument.)
  • i will sit on this for a long time, thx
Sign In or Register to comment.