You make the play #6
Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200)
Seat #8 is the button
Seat 2: Intven (4700 in chips)
Seat 3: kanghigh (2560 in chips)
Seat 8: ScottyZ (6240 in chips)
Intven: posts small blind 100
kanghigh: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to ScottyZ [Qh 3h]
ScottyZ: calls 200
Intven: raises 200 to 400
kanghigh: calls 200
ScottyZ: calls 200
*** FLOP *** [5c 8h Qd]
Intven: bets 600
kanghigh: folds
ScottyZ: calls 600
*** TURN *** [5c 8h Qd] [Kc]
Intven: bets 600
ScottyZ: calls 600
*** RIVER *** [5c 8h Qd Kc] [6s]
Intven: bets 1000
The opponent is generally a solid player, and is moving his chips well in the late stages, although I wouldn't categorize his aggressiveness as excessive.
Now what?
ScottyZ
Seat #8 is the button
Seat 2: Intven (4700 in chips)
Seat 3: kanghigh (2560 in chips)
Seat 8: ScottyZ (6240 in chips)
Intven: posts small blind 100
kanghigh: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to ScottyZ [Qh 3h]
ScottyZ: calls 200
Intven: raises 200 to 400
kanghigh: calls 200
ScottyZ: calls 200
*** FLOP *** [5c 8h Qd]
Intven: bets 600
kanghigh: folds
ScottyZ: calls 600
*** TURN *** [5c 8h Qd] [Kc]
Intven: bets 600
ScottyZ: calls 600
*** RIVER *** [5c 8h Qd Kc] [6s]
Intven: bets 1000
The opponent is generally a solid player, and is moving his chips well in the late stages, although I wouldn't categorize his aggressiveness as excessive.
Now what?
ScottyZ
Comments
I, myself, wouldn't have call a preflop raise or even the big blind with that hand. You're bound to get yourself into trouble by hitting top pair-low kicker, or chasing a flush.
So what did happen?
Patience young grasshopper. I'll post the outcome in a few days after more people have had the chance to put their $0.02 in.
I agree with this at a full table (for the reasons you mentioned), but you've go to loosen up considerably when it's down to 3 handed. In fact, I'd often raise with that particular hand from the 3 handed button, but I was in "slow gear" since I had just made several pre-flop raises in the recent hands (sometimes steals, once with a legitimate hand which I won with vs. a short stack... nice advertizing!). 8)
After limping in, calling the minimum raise is automatic I think.
I actually did consider raising that flop, which is not a bad play at all. My gut feeling was that my hand was good on the flop, but I wasn't so confident that I wanted to commit a lot of chips here. Making it around 2000 to go on the flop would certainly be a solid play, but I guess I prefered to play this one in the good old "check and call" shell.
ScottyZ
I think the limp on the button is fine. You can afford to try to see a few cheap flops with your stack. I guess if you're going to limp on the button with these types of hands, you should just make sure you're doing it with other hands as well, including big ones.
Obviously, you can call the minimum raise here preflop.
I'm with Jay on raising the flop.
Despite the fact that he's not overly aggressive, just about any player will lead at a flop if they raised preflop, regardless of whether they hit it or not. So, more exactly, I'd raise him 600 back. If he re-raises, fold. If he folds a hand like ace-king (which he should with that flop), good. If he calls, proceed with caution.
But, let's get back to what actually *did* happen. You called the flop bet, which is fine, but you don't gather much information about his possible holdings. When the king comes on the turn, I'd probably fold.
But, you called. With 4600 in the pot after Intven's river bet, I think you have the odds to call the 1000. This is hard to calculate, because it's hard to put him on a hand given the action. You have to ask: "of all the possible hands he would play this way, can I beat 25% (or so) of them?"
If the answer's yes, call. But it's really, really close.
Interesting hand, I'm looking forward to seeing the results. If I were to venture a guess, I'd guess you were beat.
Regards,
all_aces
Overall I think you butchered this hand - it is unlikely that your hand started as the best hand preflop (why call a raise or limp with this hand). And after you flop top pair you do not do anything to find out where you are.
If your opponent is strong he likely thinks he is good in the hand, but from your play there is really know way for him to know (i.e. if he has JJ wouldn't he think he is good and still bet the river)?
Anyway I would call the $1000 and not be surprised if I win OR lose the hand.
I remember using up almost my enitre time bank of 60 seconds (a lifetime online, I rarely use my time bank at *all*) for this decision. A significant portion of this time is me attempting to calm down after realizing how (as a lot of you have mentioned) I have no idea what was going on with this hand after playing it so brutally. I actually almost folded instantly, pretty much in anger.
When I am finally seeing somewhat straight again (time bank = 42, 41, 40,...) what catches my attention was the exact size of his bet. Why is he betting exactly 1,000 after betting exactly 600 each on both the flop and turn? I get the feeling that 1,000 is a "simulated" value bet. I thought if he has a good hand, he either moves the bet up on the turn (which he didn't), or would bet 600 *again* on the river betting for value, if "repeat the bet" happens to be his value betting style.
I think if he moves all-in here, I fold, and *maybe* if he bets exactly 600 again, I fold (though probably not since a bet of 600 is too small into that pot). The 1,000 just gives me a suspicious feeling.
I get irritated again. (time bank = 26, 25, 24,...)
I try running though the hands he might have. Not to many big hands make sense after he raises the minimum pre-flop into both the BB and a button limper. (AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ)
What does make sense? Drawing hands like small suited connectors, or suited Aces make sense. A suited (or unsuited) King? (time bank = 10, 9, 8,...)
Finally, I look at the pot size and think that I really don't have enough information to fold, so I call. I think I favoured calling since I couldn't convince myself that I was beat (instead of folding because I coudn't convince myself I was winning). This is along the lines of all_aces' comment regarding the pot odds being such that I only needed to win about 25% of the time here.
Luckily, my Q ended up being good (he had AT, I believe suited) so I was rewarded by brutal play.
I rarely get very upset about bad beats, but this kind of hand sure does upset me. Barf.
I think, in retrospect, calling on the river is pretty elementary. It's getting to that point that was stinky.
ScottyZ
You know what I find interesting... it's the same kind of thing as my 'who played worse' hand.... we both (probably) made the absolute most we could make with these hands.
But, we both know we played them poorly. In my case, I got the guy to call me all the way down with pocket queens, with an ace and a king on the board, because I wasn't representing strength (after the flop). In your case, you induced not one, but three bluffs (flop, turn and river). Not deliberately, mind you, but the effect was the same: you seemed weak and he read you as being maybe a little weaker than you actually were, and tried to take it from you.
In your case, a flop raise, and you *should* win the pot right then and there. You'd win less by playing correctly. In my case, I did in fact raise the flop (check-raise, same difference...) and my opponent was foolish enough to call. If I'd bet out on the turn with anything more than the minimum, he would have HAD to fold, even though he called the c/r on the flop.
Now, what we have to do, is play this way *on purpose*. I have to realize that betting the minimum will win me the most money sometimes. This is a tricky situation because any decent player will try and take it from me if I do that. You have to realize that the guy's bluffing, and just calling him down will win you more than raising will. Although this, too, is risky.
Every time I win a nice pot with bad play, I like to figure out if there's a case to be made for playing it the same way next time, but on purpose.
Regards,
all_aces
I *will* actually play much stronger hands that weakly, especially if I think my opponent will keep firing chips at me.
As sort of an aside, there's something to be said about betting the minimum. I see *lots* of players who will bet the minimum on every street as a bluff *very* often. One nice thing about this is if you get caught doing it, it's no big deal because you put very little at risk (as long as you have the sense to get away from it if someone raises you). Also, someone who is picking you off (or possibly drawing) by calling you down only wins the minimum bet on every street. I'm sure that Doyle Brunson would criticize this sort of "gutless bet", but I'm seeing it work so often online that I'm beginning to consider its merits.
What is a good counter-strategy to someone betting the minimum on every street? Simply wait until the BB is big enough so that betting the minimum actually matters? Blow the minimum bettor off a bunch of small pots?
Raise the minimum? 8)
Well, that was pretty off topic.
Agreed. But possibly putting less of my chips at risk.
That's a nice way to think of it.
Also, by playing badly, you are (most likely) playing in a way that a good opponent would not expect. So, it's an interesting way to look at (although it may have been unintentional at the time) varying your play. There's probably no way a good opponent puts me on a Queen (or better) after I just called on the flop when it's shorthanded and heads-up. He may think I have a good draw, or bottom pair. He may think I'm slowplaying a monster.
However, for me, the best thing about making a bad play could be that it's a significant wake up call that my game needs improvement. And that it always will.
ScottyZ
Well said. Amen.
Regards,
all_aces