Quick Hand For Analysis...

Playing .50/$1 on Party.

I'am UTG1, and have QQ, I raise, 5 folds,1 call, 1 re-raise,two folds
I re-raise to try to isolate me and the re-raiser, My isolation bet works as the limper folds. I now have QQ vs. Unknown. My inital reaction is that he probably has AJs, or AQs, mainly beause those are both quality hands I could see this oppentent re-raising, with in his position.

Now, the flop comes down 7d,2c,Ah.
I bet, my oppenet re-raises. I decide to call. Turn card is Jc, I check, oppenet bets. I fold.
Its hard to lay down the ladies, but maybe this should have a no brainer?

I figured there was no sense raising first off on foruth street due to the fact that it's low-limit and he has already has contriubted a few bets into the pot, and he probably will chase to end anyway if he doesn't have the Ax and if he does have an Ax I'm more than probably beat in this situation. In another instance and one that was unlikely but probable was him on KK, anyway moral of the story is he didn't show, and mucked his hand after I folded.

Now My Questions,

#1. After he re-raised me, should I have re-raised once again with QQ? (Pre-Flop)
#2. After the flop should I have folded to his bet after the A hit with a rainbow?
#3. How Far to go with Q's if just one over card is on the board and your oppenet has shown strength all the way?

Anway, not a good night tonight -$8.85,
had AQ (did raise and was called by a T3o in the big blind) against T3, and had an Q off the flop (no over cards or draws on the turn or river), he had a three in his hand and a three on the flop and then rivered a 3. Beat me out, lost a few bb's there.

Oh well. Hadn't lost in a few nights and figured I was due. Just wanted some feedback on that QQ hand.

P.


(p.s) I also have began reading SSHE by Miller,Sklansky,Malmuth, so far a more agressive style than Jones' work on Low Limit. Just wondering if anyone has applied a more "sklansky" approach or do you figure that Sklanksy's work is more for just loose games and .50/$1 is still too micro to apply those contexts?

Thanks Guys.

Comments

  • I'm not sure if you made the right lay down, and i say that only because i think you gave your opponent a great chance to bluff at you...

    if i was your opponent and i held somehting like JJ, i likely wouldve played it the same way...
    i re-raise the turn... assuming you wont cap with AK-AJ or an inferior hand... if it gets capped, i usually put the player on AA-QQ or even AKs (depends on the player of course)

    When the ace flops i put in a re-raise and represent the ace... if my raise only gets called and then its checked to me on the turn, its a great place for me to take the pot from you with a semi-bluff (i also find out if i'm being bluffed, depending on how my opponent reacts)

    i dont have much experience playing .50/1.00 though, and not sure if your opponents are using these semi-bluffs... so much depends on the context of the game you're playing in, but i'd say
    theres a great possibility you did make the right play
  • A challenging low-limit hand to play, and I'm looking forward to hearing people's thoughts about this one.
    #1. After he re-raised me, should I have re-raised once again with QQ? (Pre-Flop)

    This, I think, is the only clear cut play.

    I'd certainly recommend capping the betting here. The main factor here is the player who called two bets cold. You can be very confident that you have this player beaten badly, and would prefer to either drive the player out (since he may still have one overcard), or have him pay full price to limp along.

    If the hand was instead guaranteed to be heads-up, whether to just call the 3-bet or cap the betting would be a play you could mix up, though I'd still often cap it anyway in this case.
    #2. After the flop should I have folded to his bet after the A hit with a rainbow?

    This is a tough decision. Checking with the intention of folding feels very wrong to me. I'm going to see if my opponent can stand some heat before I get away from the hand.

    I would probably bet the flop. If my opponent just calls, I may keep on firing throughout the rest of the hand. There's a reasonable chance that my hand is good.

    When the opponent raises you on the flop, this puts you in a difficult spot. I'm not much of an advocate of the "power of position" in low-limit. However, this spot is a fantastic example of that power, or more accurately, the powerlessness of being out of position.

    It may sound bizzare, but after being raised on the flop I now hate all three options.

    I think I hate folding the least, and unless I was against a noticably aggressive player, I'd probably toss in the Queens here. As I said, I hate this play, but hate calling and re-raising too.
    #3. How Far to go with Q's if just one over card is on the board and your oppenent has shown strength all the way?

    "One overcard" doesn't quite tell the whole story. It's an Ace. I think I might even see the QQ through to the showdown if facing a K-high flop instead.

    With the Ace on board, and your opponent not only taking your heat, but raising you back, I think I'm convinced enough to give up on my Queens on the flop.

    An important thing to remember is that we're talking about low-limit here (almost playing like micro-limit, being the lowest limit available on the site). I'm not putting my (otherwise unknown) opponent on being able to bluff-raise the A-high flop after heavy pre-flop action with only a pocket pair.

    The exact same hand may play quite differently at other limits.

    ScottyZ
  • 1. another raise would not of pushed him off the pot and you would lose more. You could always cash in after the flop if you hit a set etc.
    2. I would of checked the the flop and see if he bets. If he holds an ace he would bet. I would of called the re-raise and then check/fold the turn too.
    3. I make it a habit not to get over aggressive when there are over cards on the baord and the player is betting. More often then not they have a higher pair. He could of re-raised you with A2 or A/x hand. Players at this level love A/x hands and are not afraid to reraise. I've lost lots of money to players that hold A/x and bust my KK or QQ when an ace flops. There is no way to push them off the hand, they dont care about their kicker, all they see is a pair of ACES.

    I would reccomend Dave Scharfs book. I've recently bought his book and its helped me fill several holes in my game already. I moved up in limits to 1/2 and I've had very good results in every session I've played. Very good read.


    Red
  • For the first question I have no problem capping the flop holding QQ.
    Now post flop....
    What type of player is your opponent? Is he tight or loose? On the party tables you have people that will raise preflop with any Ace or K/rag or small pair. Is he a player that has a very high pre flop raise %? If he is playing and raising half the hands he is in I am not laying it down. He can have any range of cards. On the other hand if he is only playing 5% of his hands and that was only his first or second raise of the night then I am probably letting go of QQ as you can probably put him on a strong A (good kicker) or even KK. A tight passive player (VPIP < 15, Preflop raise % < then 4 or 5) wouldn't show that much strength on a flop with an A (even if they have JJ or TT in their hand). If he is tight passive I would say you are beat, if he is like so many other Party players playing 50%+ of the hands I would need to see them (especially since you have him isolated). If there were 3 or more players still around then an easy fold unless you have the pot odds to chase your set. Somebody usually sticks around with A/rag.
  • Theres a quite a bit of fundamental thinking expressed here that I disagree with.
    I re-raise to try to isolate me and the re-raiser,

    Well with QQ, you arent really raising to isolate the raiser. You are raising for value because you are only behind when he's got KK or AA. If villian holds AK, you have the longterm edge on him.
    I now have QQ vs. Unknown.

    Villians hand is FAR from unknown. He 3 bet you preflop which puts him somewhere in the JJ+/AJs+ realm, sssuming hes a reasonable player (behaviour is unspecified).
    My inital reaction is that he probably has AJs, or AQs

    You seriously think he's holding one of the two queens left in the deck? Any reason he doesn't have AK?
    Now, the flop comes down 7d,2c,Ah.
    I bet, my oppenet re-raises. I decide to call.

    Why? Why did you call the flop if you were going to fold the turn? You aren't getting the odds from the pot for this decision path. Your opponent has put in as many bets as he possibly can so I think we can upgrade his hand to atleast a pair of Kings. JJ should be too scared of your leadout bet.. Also, lets remember that most players at this level are very straightforward. No tricks. Raises are strength, checks/calls are weak.

    Now, that being said there are two ways to play this hand if he's a little tricky/agressive. You either call him down to the river getting about 3 to 1 odds or you fold the flop. So now the question becomes, given his action and any tidbit of info you know about this guy, Will you be good in this situation 33% of the time? I don't actually think you will, so I favour folding (GASP!), but do it sooner than later.

    I figured there was no sense raising first off on foruth street due

    There is no value to raising heads up when you are very likely to be behind. The pot odds are the only justification you can make to continue play on this hand. Raising loses them.
    Anway, not a good night tonight -$8.85,

    Dude.. -8BB is nothing. Quit expecting to win every session.
    (p.s) I also have began reading SSHE by Miller,Sklansky,Malmuth, so far a more agressive style than Jones' work on Low Limit. Just wondering if anyone has applied a more "sklansky" approach or do you figure that Sklanksy's work is more for just loose games and .50/$1 is still too micro to apply those contexts?

    I think you need to stay at the Jones level for another 10,000 hands. If you dont understand poker at a fundamental level then you are going to bleed a massive amount of chips after reading Miller.

    As for that skansky comment.. Umm.. His book was written for high(er) limit play where player are tight, tricky and observant. It's completely useless in the micro games.
  • Hero should check on the flop, then fold if Villain bets or raises - Villain is then representing overcard (AA) pair - it's unlikely he's bluffing at this level.
  • Yeah, my fundementals still need a lot of work and than you all for your insights. I guess I am different I love people being hard on me because you get a "no bullshit" look at what your doing so instead of sugar coating it, so thanks for those who were able to put their points in a point by point smarten up fashion, thats how I learn :smile:

    Anyway, thanks again all

    P.
  • A lot of these people are just awful players at Party 0.50/1. It's true that a lot of players don't bluff much at these levels but it's also true that there's more than a couple of maniacs raising all the time with nothing. So depends on the player. I don't think folding is bad and I'd be inclined to myself. One thing I would say is that I'd never check fold the flop. If you check, he's betting 99.9999% of the time and you lose to TT and JJ every time or even much worse if he's a maniac. Bet-calling is okay, I might try a check raise and see what happens.

    As for some of your other questions about Sklansky, etc.... Small Stakes Holdem is really an excellent book and applies pretty closely to these low stake games. I find the preflop plays a little aggressive, especially if you are a new player but the play after the flop is gold. Sklansky doesn't necessarily apply to higher limit games, to me personally, but to games where there are only 2 or 3 people seeing the flop. Bluffing with 4 or 5 people or making moves more accurately, just isn't that important. But, with 2 or 3 people seeing the flop there will be a lot of times that nobody has a very good hand for one thing. I've been playing lately as a prop and when the play is 2 or 3 way, I can see a lot more how Sklansky applies and also how much that at lower stakes (looser games more specifically) it just isn't as important as playing straight forward. There is also the factor that people at this level just call anything after the flop and don't really care that much if they lose nor pay much attention to what you do.

    Lastly, I'll give you the advice that you may want to get your feet wet at Party but if you want to learn to play better, go to a less idiotic site. Ultimate Bet has some of the tougher low limit games around, as does Poker Stars, and if you care more about learning they are a lot closer to poker than bingo. If you want to win and build a bank roll, bingo it up.
  • raiseany wrote:
    Lastly, I'll give you the advice that you may want to get your feet wet at Party but if you want to learn to play better, go to a less idiotic site. Ultimate Bet has some of the tougher low limit games around, as does Poker Stars, and if you care more about learning they are a lot closer to poker than bingo. If you want to win and build a bank roll, bingo it up.

    Something has happened at Stars the past couple of months. The play at .5/1 is much looser then it was and is much more "Party" like. I don't know if it was those pstar adds before the superbowl or what but you can often find tables with greater then 8BB pots and 50% seeing the flop. I would say that .5/1 at Stars is almost as horrible as Party (not quite the volume of horrible, but horrible just the same).

    I have to disagree with looking for tougher tables at .5/1. Build up the bankroll and then move up in limits. Why grind it out in a .5/1 rock garden? Just my opinion though, doesn't mean you are wrong.

    cheers
  • Why grind it out in a .5/1 rock garden?

    I wholeheartedly agree. Table selection is key. I would say at low limits it's better to figure out how to beat a "bingo" game than a rock garden (because 90-95% of the games at this level are going to have 5-10 people to the flop). I don't believe in paying a premium for a poker education. Play where you feel comfortable. If you get to the point that dominating these games becomes boring, by all means, move up a level and test yourself there. Probably one of the biggest things you can work on in these "bingo" games is trying to keep yourself level, as the bad beats will happen. Mastering control of tilting might be the biggest thing you can learn at this level (and is much easier said than done).
  • If you find yourself playing against a table filled entirely with tough opponents at any limit, you have made the worst mistake you can possibly make in poker. Actively seeking out a tougher game makes no sense.

    Stick with Party, and continue reading all you can about poker. The latter is where most of the real poker learning takes place.

    I'd suggest the Lee Jones book and Dave Scharf's book if you are a relatively new player.

    Perhaps put Miller/Sklansky/Malmuth aside for now and pick it up again when you've got some good experience under your belt. It's an excellent book, but has many concepts which beginning or even intermediate players can easily misinterpret/misuse. I'm still baffled that they decided to drop the "For Advanced Players" from the title of this book.

    Finally, after moving up in limits at various points, I realized two important things about my lower-limit experience:

    1. There are many loose players at higher limits. This was a pleasant surprise.

    2. I am glad I had developed a strong knowledge of how to play against loose opponents in particular. It's simple to play against the tight ones.

    ScottyZ
Sign In or Register to comment.