First, min-raising in NL hold'em is not a great play, especially on the bubble where you are not wanting to price any BB in regardless of what he is holding.
He's getting 3.5-1 on his call preflop so you tell me what becomes playable there.
3xBB is better
Then you flop top two on a rainbow board. This is not a time to try and buy a pot outright. You should be celebrating here because on the bubble, so many hands that you could have dominated might have called before the flop. Not to mention, a lot of those hands could easily have a smaller piece of this flop.
If you did want to try and buy it outright, a pot sized bet is what you want here. That is at least 900
Still, I like the 600 bet becasue I don't want this guy going anywhere and I'd love his call.
The turn heart makes a hearts draw scary and this is exactly why a check is such a bad idea.
Now is the time to price him out. On the turn, I'd be all-in. Checking is about the worst play here.
Once that king comes on the river, you should be singing and dancing
the only hand which beats you is AA and if you go around afraid everyone has AA, you are costing yourself a lot of money.
The fact that he didn't re-raise before the flop would have me even more convinced that he doesn't have AA, not that I would be even slightly in the first place.
Yeah, it sucks to lose to AA here, but if you got scared with this hand - You scare way too easily and on this hand you just can't avoid losing your stack. If you don't lose your stack here, I suspect you are costing yourself on similar hands.
I know on the bubble things are going to change a bit with that tiny stack, but this hand is a MONSTER. Truth is, it's a monster even just as top two with no flush or straight avaliable (or plausible).
I'm still undecided on raising the minimum pre-flop in NL in late position (or short-handed). I used to hate it, but it might have some usefulness over simply limping in, in that the SB doesn't get an easy chance to limp in with trash.
However, I almost never min-raise as a steal (doesn't put enough pressure on the BB), so I'm sure not going to give away information my min-raising when I have a legit hand. (Unless I think you've read this post, in which case, I'll min-raise on a steal, and 3xBB on a legit hand. Or maybe the other way around.) 8)
This means that you have to be winning almost 6 times out of 7 when called for the raise to be a good play.
There are 4 different ways your opponent can have KQ and 4 different ways that your opponent can have KJ. My guess is your opponent is calling a river raise with these hands. Since there is one way to be dealt AA here, we're already past 6 out of 7.
Even if you don't think your opponent would call your flop bet with merely a pair of Kings, we can still get enough hands which are callable on the flop I think. How about 33 (3 ways), and K3 (3 ways). That's him calling you on the river with non-Aces exactly 6 out of 7 times. If you can put just one more hand into the possible holdings list (how about 52s, or AQ?), you've got more than the required 6 out of 7.
The main point I think is that your opponent is calling your final raise on the river with a wide variety of hands, even as little as a bad Ace. I don't see him making even a moderately tough laydown for the last 900 chips. In fact, probably the only hand he might not pay off the raise with is a busted draw.
The other main point, is that I *wouldn't* put my opponent on a good hand pre-flop. The chip leader calling the minimum raise in defense of the big blind doesn't mean he has to have a good hand. Ace-rag will do nicely. As will many other hands. As AleoMagus pointed out, the pot odds for 3.5 to 1, and the implied odds are at least this high. A good player can call with any two cards. Although many players would throw away absolute trash pre-flop, I think many players will call a minimum raise from the BB with any hand that has any kind of potential. You certainly can't limit their pre-flop holdings in any meaningful way.
I'm still undecided on raising the minimum pre-flop in NL in late position (or short-handed). I used to hate it, but it might have some usefulness over simply limping in, in that the SB doesn't get an easy chance to limp in with trash.
However, I almost never min-raise as a steal (doesn't put enough pressure on the BB), so I'm sure not going to give away information my min-raising when I have a legit hand. (Unless I think you've read this post, in which case, I'll min-raise on a steal, and 3xBB on a legit hand. Or maybe the other way around.) 8)
This means that you have to be winning almost 6 times out of 7 when called for the raise to be a good play.
There are 4 different ways your opponent can have KQ and 4 different ways that your opponent can have KJ. My guess is your opponent is calling a river raise with these hands. Since there is one way to be dealt AA here, we're already past 6 out of 7.
Even if you don't think your opponent would call your flop bet with merely a pair of Kings, we can still get enough hands which are callable on the flop I think. How about 33 (3 ways), and K3 (3 ways). That's him calling you on the river with non-Aces exactly 6 out of 7 times. If you can put just one more hand into the possible holdings list (how about 52s, or AQ?), you've got more than the required 6 out of 7.
The main point I think is that your opponent is calling your final raise on the river with a wide variety of hands, even as little as a bad Ace. I don't see him making even a moderately tough laydown for the last 900 chips. In fact, probably the only hand he might not pay off the raise with is a busted draw.
ScottyZ
Like I said, it's all about knowing your opponent. Would he bet out on the river with the intention of calling with just an ace (even a good one like AQ)? Many players here will either check, or bet with the intention of FOLDING if raised, in an attempt to show the hand down for cheap. Betting out and then calling any raise with an ace doesnt make much sense...
If there are lots of hands which your opponent could have, which you can reasonably put him on throughout the whole hand, the sure, push all-in. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with just calling. If you win you are only giving up 900 chips... and if you lose you are saving yourself a much much MUCH more valuable 900 chips.
BTW, those equity calculations assumed an even skill level between all the remaining players. If you think that you're one of the better players, then you need even BETTER odds to raise all-in (since your equity is more than would be indicated by your relative chip count, if you are one of the better players)
I mean, I don't know. I see your point. I really do. I don't think that raising all-in is a bad play here... I just think that calling deserves some consideration. When you do the math it turns out to be a lot closer than one might expect at first glance. And, I think that it's a GREAT example of the whole "chips change value" concept. It's one thing to hear that the chips at the top of your stack are worth less than the ones at the bottom, but it's another to work out a specific example and see that, in this case, the 900 at the bottom are worth 6 times as much as the 900 at the top. That is a HUGE difference.
I mean, I don't know. I see your point. I really do. I don't think that raising all-in is a bad play here... I just think that calling deserves some consideration.
And I definitely see the other point of view in general. By which I mean (for example) if your own hand here was even slightly worse, I like just calling.
I'll just call the river with KQ in this hand. A tougher decision is with 33. In fact, my intuition is that 33 might be the breaking point between calling and raising. I think I'd raise with better than 33 (namely, AK or AA), and just call with worse than that. But having exactly 33 is even more of a puzzler. My feeling is that the call/raise decision with 33 is *extremely* close.
I totally agree that it's not worth putting those last chips at risk unless the situation strongly justifies it. However, I think AK is a good enough holding for that justification to be in place.
[quote=""ScottyZHellmuthFan, I'll bet you one Canadian dollar that the BB does not have KK. 8)
[/quote"]
I want in on this action... except I will give HellmouthFan a better deal.
If BB has KK then I will give you $1,000,000. If he doesn't, you just give me $100 via Pokerstars! 8) Deal?
I put him on aces, kings, or ak. He called your preflop raise, so he's gotta have a top ten hand. The flop had scare cards. You can rule out kq because there was an ace on the board and he didnt fold to your raise. Maybe he hit trips with that rag, but I wouldn't worry about that and I would pay someone off everytime that happens.
Since he called both your bets, it's clear you are tied or beaten... although he could be chasing a flush draw, which would be foolish.
Comments
First, min-raising in NL hold'em is not a great play, especially on the bubble where you are not wanting to price any BB in regardless of what he is holding.
He's getting 3.5-1 on his call preflop so you tell me what becomes playable there.
3xBB is better
Then you flop top two on a rainbow board. This is not a time to try and buy a pot outright. You should be celebrating here because on the bubble, so many hands that you could have dominated might have called before the flop. Not to mention, a lot of those hands could easily have a smaller piece of this flop.
If you did want to try and buy it outright, a pot sized bet is what you want here. That is at least 900
Still, I like the 600 bet becasue I don't want this guy going anywhere and I'd love his call.
The turn heart makes a hearts draw scary and this is exactly why a check is such a bad idea.
Now is the time to price him out. On the turn, I'd be all-in. Checking is about the worst play here.
Once that king comes on the river, you should be singing and dancing
the only hand which beats you is AA and if you go around afraid everyone has AA, you are costing yourself a lot of money.
The fact that he didn't re-raise before the flop would have me even more convinced that he doesn't have AA, not that I would be even slightly in the first place.
Yeah, it sucks to lose to AA here, but if you got scared with this hand - You scare way too easily and on this hand you just can't avoid losing your stack. If you don't lose your stack here, I suspect you are costing yourself on similar hands.
I know on the bubble things are going to change a bit with that tiny stack, but this hand is a MONSTER. Truth is, it's a monster even just as top two with no flush or straight avaliable (or plausible).
Any Thoughts?
Regards
Brad S
I'm still undecided on raising the minimum pre-flop in NL in late position (or short-handed). I used to hate it, but it might have some usefulness over simply limping in, in that the SB doesn't get an easy chance to limp in with trash.
However, I almost never min-raise as a steal (doesn't put enough pressure on the BB), so I'm sure not going to give away information my min-raising when I have a legit hand. (Unless I think you've read this post, in which case, I'll min-raise on a steal, and 3xBB on a legit hand. Or maybe the other way around.) 8)
There are 4 different ways your opponent can have KQ and 4 different ways that your opponent can have KJ. My guess is your opponent is calling a river raise with these hands. Since there is one way to be dealt AA here, we're already past 6 out of 7.
Even if you don't think your opponent would call your flop bet with merely a pair of Kings, we can still get enough hands which are callable on the flop I think. How about 33 (3 ways), and K3 (3 ways). That's him calling you on the river with non-Aces exactly 6 out of 7 times. If you can put just one more hand into the possible holdings list (how about 52s, or AQ?), you've got more than the required 6 out of 7.
The main point I think is that your opponent is calling your final raise on the river with a wide variety of hands, even as little as a bad Ace. I don't see him making even a moderately tough laydown for the last 900 chips. In fact, probably the only hand he might not pay off the raise with is a busted draw.
The other main point, is that I *wouldn't* put my opponent on a good hand pre-flop. The chip leader calling the minimum raise in defense of the big blind doesn't mean he has to have a good hand. Ace-rag will do nicely.
ScottyZ
Like I said, it's all about knowing your opponent. Would he bet out on the river with the intention of calling with just an ace (even a good one like AQ)? Many players here will either check, or bet with the intention of FOLDING if raised, in an attempt to show the hand down for cheap. Betting out and then calling any raise with an ace doesnt make much sense...
If there are lots of hands which your opponent could have, which you can reasonably put him on throughout the whole hand, the sure, push all-in. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with just calling. If you win you are only giving up 900 chips... and if you lose you are saving yourself a much much MUCH more valuable 900 chips.
BTW, those equity calculations assumed an even skill level between all the remaining players. If you think that you're one of the better players, then you need even BETTER odds to raise all-in (since your equity is more than would be indicated by your relative chip count, if you are one of the better players)
I mean, I don't know. I see your point. I really do. I don't think that raising all-in is a bad play here... I just think that calling deserves some consideration. When you do the math it turns out to be a lot closer than one might expect at first glance. And, I think that it's a GREAT example of the whole "chips change value" concept. It's one thing to hear that the chips at the top of your stack are worth less than the ones at the bottom, but it's another to work out a specific example and see that, in this case, the 900 at the bottom are worth 6 times as much as the 900 at the top. That is a HUGE difference.
Keith
And I definitely see the other point of view in general. By which I mean (for example) if your own hand here was even slightly worse, I like just calling.
I'll just call the river with KQ in this hand. A tougher decision is with 33. In fact, my intuition is that 33 might be the breaking point between calling and raising. I think I'd raise with better than 33 (namely, AK or AA), and just call with worse than that. But having exactly 33 is even more of a puzzler. My feeling is that the call/raise decision with 33 is *extremely* close.
I totally agree that it's not worth putting those last chips at risk unless the situation strongly justifies it. However, I think AK is a good enough holding for that justification to be in place.
ScottyZ
[/quote"]
I want in on this action... except I will give HellmouthFan a better deal.
If BB has KK then I will give you $1,000,000. If he doesn't, you just give me $100 via Pokerstars! 8) Deal?
Since he called both your bets, it's clear you are tied or beaten... although he could be chasing a flush draw, which would be foolish.