200 NL: Getting Value?

Hi Folks. I have two hands this afternoon. I would like your opinion to the following please?

a) How would you have played hand 1 differently to get long term best value? - or would you play the same?

b) How would you have played hand 2 differently to get long term, best value?

c) If I told you that the villian in both cases was the same person ( within 20 hands) do you think that the 1st hand influenced the 2nd?

d) do you have any other comments on my play from these hands?

Thanks for any replies...


Hand 1

pokerstars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (6 handed)
CO ($242)
Hero ($217.70)
SB ($212.10)
BB ($113.80)
UTG ($197)
MP ($115.60)
Preflop: Hero is Button with , .
1 fold, MP calls $2, 1 fold, Hero raises to $8, SB calls $7, 1 fold, MP folds.
Flop: ($20) , , (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $12, SB calls $12.
Turn: ($44) (2 players)
SB bets $12, Hero raises to $52, SB folds.
Final Pot: $68
Results in white below:
No showdown. Hero wins $68.





Hand 2

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (6 handed)
MP ($231)
Hero ($252.95)
Button ($263.50)
SB ($76.30)
BB ($200)
UTG ($124.35)
Preflop: Hero is CO with K , K .
2 folds, Hero raises to $8, Button calls $8, 1 fold, BB calls $6.
Flop: ($25) 2 , 8 , K (3 players)
BB checks, Hero checks, Button bets $12, BB calls $12, Hero raises to $30, Button calls $18, BB folds.
Turn: ($97) 7 (2 players)
Hero bets $64, Button calls $64.
River: ($225) Q (2 players)
Hero bets $76, Button calls $76.
Final Pot: $377
Results in white below:
Hero has Kh Kd (three of a kind, kings).
Button has Ts Ks (one pair, kings).
Outcome: Hero wins $377.

Well first hand you should obviously raise the turn, i dunno if that was a little steep, but if he has top pair then you mishgt as well start getting most his money in now.

Guess is he had something weak like bottom pair and was betting around. So maybe id have raised a little less but not sure if thatd have amde a difference.

Second hand, he called you throughout, and if he missed his draw youre not getting money from him anyway, but if he has a hand, then you couldve made your rievr bet bigger i think. If he calls 64$ on turn and isnt on a draw, he can call more on river.

But you still got a lot of money in on previous streets from top pair weak kicker, so wasnt all that bad.

I would have bet more on the flop in each hand.

Hand 1:

a set, 2-pair and an OESD will call a pot sized bet, so that is what I would make. The larger your flop bet is, the easier time you have getting all your chips in.

Hand 2:

I would raise the flop to $60. That way you are making your opponents call $48 in a $109 pot, or about 2.3:1. Therefore anyone drawing to a flush is getting incorrect odds. Again, this will help you get it all in on the turn or river, depending on who calls.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I am not too sure that betting enough to scare opponents away when I have a very strong hand is the right thing in terms of long term value.

That said I do understand the balance, to avoid suckouts, and take on board the point about betting some areas a bit bigger.

calibanboy said:

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I am not too sure that betting enough to scare opponents away when I have a very strong hand is the right thing in terms of long term value.

That said I do understand the balance, to avoid suckouts, and take on board the point about betting some areas a bit bigger.

Click to expand...

If you are sure that bets of the size I mentioned would get your opponents to fold, by all means bet a little less, since you want them to call. My point was that if your opponents have hands that they would call a big bet with, like a strong draw, or top pair in hand 2, you can bet a lot more than you did and still get the call that you want. Don't worry about avoiding suckouts - just charge them appropriately. Also, don't worry too much about scaring your opponents away with healthy bets/raises. If they have hands they like, they will call your big bets, but they will never call a big bet if you don't make one.

Good points AJ. Thanks

hand 1: u can raise more pf, bet more on the flop, definitely raise the river

hand 2: i prob lead flop, but since you CR'ed, i CR more, and theres no reason not to push that river - if he calls 70 he's calling 120 or whatever u have left most of the time

Hand 1: I don't think I would change anything at all on this one, although I understand how you might think you missed out on value (and you probably did). Flopping the idiot end of a straght with high cards on the board is dangerous because there are too many scare cards that could come and force you to tough decisions (and make you lose money, which is worse than losing value).

The fact he called your PF raise makes hands like KQ, KJ, KT, AJ, AT,A9, etc all probable and his check/call on the flop enforces this idea of him having top, 2nd or 3rd pair with a drawing card. Any A, K or 9 puts you in a tough spot, and so many trouble cards in the deck force you to price him out of this so if he calls at least you made sure it was done incorrectly. You added $40 to his bet on the turn making the pot $108, which is giving him about 2.7 to 1. You really can't raise less than that with so many scare cards out there.

He decided to fold to your bet because he probably put you on AK considering your PF raise +flop bet +most of all, the big turn raise. In order to keep him interested in the pot and get more you should have raised it to $30 maximum, but I can't see this move being the right one. He folded, so game over.

Consider this: not having seen the river card, maybe it was best that he folded. Your point about not scaring away opponents is correct, but you can't achieve that leaving good odds to drawing hands, and in this case it looks like a sure thing villain was on a draw.

Hand 2: As Alan said, you could have made a bigger bet on the river since pot was $225. If he was on a flush draw he'll fold small bets anyway, and if he has a hand he'll call $95 if he's calling $76. Overall I still think you did good on this hand though, and your flop raise and turn bets were very well sized.

Villain's starting stack was $263 and you managed to get $178 of it + $20 from the BB. Considering he had KT I'd think you did well, although you might have gotten ~$200 with a bigger bet on the river.

Thanks Joe, Very Valuable. Your thoughts on the first hand mirrored mine when I was playing this hand. Flopping the fools straight is nice, but I have been turned into a fool a few times before when I have been outdrawn in this type of situation.

W.r.t Hand 2. I agree I got a lot of money off someone with KT. Thats why I asked the question, as had I bet more I honestly think he would have folded. Also if he had a strong hand, eg a lower set etc. I think he would have gone all in anyway, ( and I would have called with the nuts) I feel that the 1st hand helped me with the second hand as I played the same player in the same way and I think I msay have niggled him. I guess i was lucky to get two good connected flops in 20 hands. ( could not hit a barn door last night ). The issue I do have is that the turn bet did give him odds to call with a flush draw, as I do not think I could get away from that if it hits. ( bad player that I am )

calibanboy said:

The issue I do have is that the turn bet did give him odds to call with a flush draw, as I do not think I could get away from that if it hits. ( bad player that I am )

Click to expand...

Tell me about it, I'm the worst player in the world when it comes to folding sets, even when the evidence is there. In all I've only folded a set one time , when the river brought in a 4th card of the same suit and I was up against 2 callers.

As far as you leaving enough odds for a flush draw, your opponent needed to call a $64 bet into a $161 pot, so he's getting less than 3 to 1. It's ok I think for him to call it considering IO, nevertheless I still believe your bet was very very well sized, because with a set you certainly don't want him to fold. Also, his clean outs were only 7, because the other 2 clubs give you a FH. So if he really were on a FD your bet was fine IMO.

There is a huge difference between the 1st and 2nd hand. The 2nd has way less scare cards that can come on the river, and I'm willing to take chances on the 2nd hand just like you did, where instead the 1st hand I'm less willing to do that, so if villain outdraws me I would make sure he doesn't do it with favorable odds.

The fact it was the same player and it happened in 20 hands certainly played a role, because he really went too far with KT. Even if table is 6-handed he should have understood he was beat when you bet the river, but he might have put you on a busted FD and he was probably still wondering if you had a hand the 1st time or maybe you played a draw aggressively. I don't think the guy was a poor player because looking again at the 1st hand, if I stand correct with what he had (top but more likely middle pair/bottom pair with a draw card), his turn blocking bet was a smart move. He then folded to your raise. So I guess the 2nd time he decided he had to look you up with top pair on a pretty dry board. Maybe I would have done the same, who knows. But for sure the 1st hand was messing with his head.

Anyway, good discussion caliban, and IMO well played both hands.

only thing i would change would be a bigger bet on the flop in hand one. I like a bet closer to the size of the pot, I think in the long run you will not only knock a K out of there, but will also make more money when your opponent folds the turn

I might have played the first hand a little different tha what everybody else is saying. After the turn card the only hand that beats you is AK. Sometimes when you have a big hand even if it is the idiot end of the straight you might want to take some gambles to make a larger profit.

Villan calls you flop bet and then bets the turn. This is great for you. Rather than make a big reraise and possibly force him out I would consider smooth calling here with position. On the river if no A or K comes you have to figure you have the best hand. Villan almost has to bet the river and then you can reraise him. There are several reasons I think this might be the better play. One, you might induce villan to bluff the river or bet for value top pair or 2 pair which gets you more money in the long run. And two, your reraise on the river might then look like an attempt to buy the pot which might get him to call the river raise when he wouldn't call the turn raise.

I know alot of people are afraid of opponents sucking out but in cash games I think we lose alot of value when we price people out playing scared.

Than chance of making more money by smooth calling outweighs the small possibility of being sucked out on and is probably a long term +EV play.

Don't get me wrong, I don't often advocate slow playing hands. But when you have the second nuts, in position and you have a villian that has shown he is willing to bet at the pot I'd let him.

mrsnake3695 said:

I might have played the first hand a little different tha what everybody else is saying. After the turn card the only hand that beats you is AK. Sometimes when you have a big hand even if it is the idiot end of the straight you might want to take some gambles to make a larger profit.

Villan calls you flop bet and then bets the turn. This is great for you. Rather than make a big reraise and possibly force him out I would consider smooth calling here with position. On the river if no A or K comes you have to figure you have the best hand. Villan almost has to bet the river and then you can reraise him. There are several reasons I think this might be the better play. One, you might induce villan to bluff the river or bet for value top pair or 2 pair which gets you more money in the long run. And two, your reraise on the river might then look like an attempt to buy the pot which might get him to call the river raise when he wouldn't call the turn raise.

I know alot of people are afraid of opponents sucking out but in cash games I think we lose alot of value when we price people out playing scared.

Than chance of making more money by smooth calling outweighs the small possibility of being sucked out on and is probably a long term +EV play.

Don't get me wrong, I don't often advocate slow playing hands. But when you have the second nuts, in position and you have a villian that has shown he is willing to bet at the pot I'd let him.

Click to expand...

Thanks Mr Snake. I do not disagree with this way either. ( except I think its the 3rd nuts after K9 - but it still stands). This is why I asked the question I see the benefit of raising to avout a suckout and I see the slow play benefit too. Both have strong arguement threads. Its the long term value that I am interested in. Which one will win the most money in the long term?.....

In first hand, i dont think whatever opponent wouldve fired on river wouldve made smooth calling preferrable.

Notice he led out on turn what you had bet on river, i think he was trying to buy a cheap river, and not making a move for the pot.

Therefore i think smoothcalling here wouldnt have given you value on river, as much as getting paid by people chasing with a King, a 9, or AQ, Aj, AT....

You have to raise turn because theer are tons of chasers and/or made hands thatll pay you off there.

mrsnake3695 said:

I might have played the first hand a little different tha what everybody else is saying. After the turn card the only hand that beats you is AK. Sometimes when you have a big hand even if it is the idiot end of the straight you might want to take some gambles to make a larger profit.

Villan calls you flop bet and then bets the turn. This is great for you. Rather than make a big reraise and possibly force him out I would consider smooth calling here with position. On the river if no A or K comes you have to figure you have the best hand. Villan almost has to bet the river and then you can reraise him. There are several reasons I think this might be the better play. One, you might induce villan to bluff the river or bet for value top pair or 2 pair which gets you more money in the long run. And two, your reraise on the river might then look like an attempt to buy the pot which might get him to call the river raise when he wouldn't call the turn raise.

I know alot of people are afraid of opponents sucking out but in cash games I think we lose alot of value when we price people out playing scared.

Than chance of making more money by smooth calling outweighs the small possibility of being sucked out on and is probably a long term +EV play.

Don't get me wrong, I don't often advocate slow playing hands. But when you have the second nuts, in position and you have a villian that has shown he is willing to bet at the pot I'd let him.

Click to expand...

Point well taken Snake, I understand it and I don't think it's wrong at all. This is more a personal issue that I have with this type of straights, because it always seems that on the turn or river a card that will screw me over will come, at least when I'm playing.

The main disadvantage is that there are 12 scare cards (4A, 4K, 4 9's) that can come and make our hand 2nd best, and you never know which ones do and which don't. Playing it aggressively here makes us lose value for sure, because that board makes the nut straight with AK and because Caliban raised this PF, I think villain put him exactly on AK and gave up on the hand.

Seeing that villain folded after Caliban's raise, he certainly lost value because if he smooth calls the turn as you say, I agree 100% that villain will fire again on the river and maybe, even call a raise. But this hand has a much higher chance than others of getting outdrawn (which seems to be the case against me very very often ), so I prefer making a raise on the turn giving him incorrect odds even if it might mean that I'll lose him. This is not the approach that I usually have with a strong hand but this type of straight is an exception. I'm not saying that I'm right in this, I'm probably not and I'm losing value every time, but that's how I play it, because against me they all turn into suckout kings, it almost never fails, so now it conditions the way I play these hands. I'll lose to OESD constantly, but I'll never hit one .