88, $10NL one overcard on the board.

edge-t

edge-t

Rock Star
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Total posts
365
fulltiltpoker Game #2248950579: Table Desert Marigold - $0.05/$0.10 - No Limit Hold'em - 8:58:40 ET - 2007/04/20
Seat 1: Donnylucky ($7.30)
Seat 2: torrie12 ($1.75)
Seat 3: legacy1 ($4.55)
Seat 4: veijjo ($9.40)
Seat 5: B-DogKY ($5.15)
Seat 6: whatever767 ($2)
Seat 7: billh354 ($16.35)
Seat 8: all_seasons ($9.85)
Seat 9: Sleeponice ($4.35)
legacy1 posts the small blind of $0.05
veijjo posts the big blind of $0.10
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Donnylucky [8c 8h]
B-DogKY folds
whatever767 folds
billh354 folds
all_seasons folds
Sleeponice folds
torrie12 stands up
Donnylucky raises to $0.35
torrie12 folds
legacy1 calls $0.30
veijjo folds
*** FLOP *** [2h Qs 7c]
KIRPICH sits down
legacy1 bets $0.80
KIRPICH adds $10
Donnylucky raises to $3
legacy1 raises to $4.20, and is all in ??

Right now, the odds are too good to lay down. However, what do you think of my line? What would you have done with a middle pocket pair with 1 overcard on the flop?

No reads on the Villain. I've been really aggressive since migrating to FT. 18/10 on the average.
 
t1riel

t1riel

Legend
Joined
May 20, 2005
Total posts
6,913
Awards
1
I would ahve called on the flop. Since you aggressively raised it to $3, it's only $1.20 more to call. You're pot committed at this point. Call.
 
hott_estelle

hott_estelle

Guest
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Total posts
1,759
Reraising on the flop there might have been a bit much. I guess you were reraising either because you thought you were ahead and wanted to take it down right there, or because you wanted to see if the villain actually had a hand (which would be betting for information). Either way, you shouldn't bet that much to push the other player out or for information, because it makes you pot committed to call any reraise.

There's no way you can fold now, so yes, call; but in the future, don't make yourself pot committed with this hand on this board. Not a smart play at all.
 
edge-t

edge-t

Rock Star
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Total posts
365
Reraising on the flop there might have been a bit much. I guess you were reraising either because you thought you were ahead and wanted to take it down right there, or because you wanted to see if the villain actually had a hand (which would be betting for information). Either way, you shouldn't bet that much to push the other player out or for information, because it makes you pot committed to call any reraise.

There's no way you can fold now, so yes, call; but in the future, don't make yourself pot committed with this hand on this board. Not a smart play at all.

Agreed. In hind sight, I was trying to be aggressive, but somehow went overboard in this situation. I guess I'll have to tone down my aggression. In the past, I was passive, now I'm maniacal. Gosh. :joyman:

I did think I was ahead, however, I don't like to min-raise. Plus, betting the pot to me, smells a lot like a bluff. When he called and reraise all-in, I was thinking to myself:

"Shit! I'm done for."

I don't know, but calling a $0.80 bet, on the turn, it's $1.60 if he's gonna bet the turn, and by the time we hit the river, it's gonna be all-in for the Villain anyway.

I figured I would bring the war to him.
 
hott_estelle

hott_estelle

Guest
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Total posts
1,759
Agreed. In hind sight, I was trying to be aggressive, but somehow went overboard in this situation. I guess I'll have to tone down my aggression. In the past, I was passive, now I'm maniacal. Gosh. :joyman:

I did think I was ahead, however, I don't like to min-raise. Plus, betting the pot to me, smells a lot like a bluff. When he called and reraise all-in, I was thinking to myself:

"Shit! I'm done for."

I don't know, but calling a $0.80 bet, on the turn, it's $1.60 if he's gonna bet the turn, and by the time we hit the river, it's gonna be all-in for the Villain anyway.

I figured I would bring the war to him.

You say this like you don't consider folding an option here to his raise on the flop an option here.

I think folding to his raise on the flop would have been a viable option as well here. But there's no need to reraise the amount you did.
 
edge-t

edge-t

Rock Star
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Total posts
365
Folding would have definitely been a viable option. What I meant was, if I decide to call, the pot would definitely be an all-in for the Villain by the time it hits the river.

Of course, in the heat of battle, folding was the last thing on my mind.
 
hott_estelle

hott_estelle

Guest
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Total posts
1,759
Folding would have definitely been a viable option. What I meant was, if I decide to call, the pot would definitely be an all-in for the Villain by the time it hits the river.

Of course, in the heat of battle, folding was the last thing on my mind.

Why? Did you have a great read on him, that he made these types of plays with absolutely nothing??

This isn't a routine fold, but it's pretty close to an easy fold here.
 
edge-t

edge-t

Rock Star
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Total posts
365
Why? Did you have a great read on him, that he made these types of plays with absolutely nothing??

This isn't a routine fold, but it's pretty close to an easy fold here.

Well, you know how they always advocate aggression in NL. I've been really passive in the past. I'm trying to change that.

I guess I didn't read the situation properly this time. And lookey! I got myself into a horrible situation. Which is why I posted this hand up for all to criticize. Apparently, I was right, I should have toned down my aggression in this hand.

Folding was the last thing on my mind, because I wasn't keeping a cool head. More of emotions than reads. :D
 
hott_estelle

hott_estelle

Guest
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Total posts
1,759
There's a difference between positive, controlled agression, and negative, reckless agression. As you probably already know, the first type of agression is the one that will have a positive affect on your game.

I don't exactly have the time right now to explain everything about certain situations, and when agression is key to winning pots and money, but it is definitely a situational play. Whenever agression is mentioned as being a key to winning in NLHE, it's speaking of situational agressions--it doesn't mean that if you're agressive every single, or even every hand that you choose to be agressive, that you'll win those or that particular hand. You can't be recklessly agressive with abandon in poker. It might work for 1 hand, 2 hands, 3, 4, 5, even something like 10 hands in a row (I'm sure a lot of us saw Gus Hansen's 8 hands in a row all-in fiasco in PokerSuperstars II or whatever it was, and him dominating that table and eventually winning that table, but this won't work everytime, or even most of the time) most of the time, a reckless agressive player will be a losing player.

A smart agressive player will know when to be agressive, and to use that agression to his/her strengths to exploits the weaknesses of his/her opponents.
 
JimboJim

JimboJim

Legend
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Total posts
2,152
He initially made a pot sized bet. If you are confident that you have him beat then you did the right thing. If you aren't then you should of folded instead of the raise. Now all you can do is call...why not.
 
edge-t

edge-t

Rock Star
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Total posts
365
There's a difference between positive, controlled agression, and negative, reckless agression. As you probably already know, the first type of agression is the one that will have a positive affect on your game.

I don't exactly have the time right now to explain everything about certain situations, and when agression is key to winning pots and money, but it is definitely a situational play. Whenever agression is mentioned as being a key to winning in NLHE, it's speaking of situational agressions--it doesn't mean that if you're agressive every single, or even every hand that you choose to be agressive, that you'll win those or that particular hand. You can't be recklessly agressive with abandon in poker. It might work for 1 hand, 2 hands, 3, 4, 5, even something like 10 hands in a row (I'm sure a lot of us saw Gus Hansen's 8 hands in a row all-in fiasco in PokerSuperstars II or whatever it was, and him dominating that table and eventually winning that table, but this won't work everytime, or even most of the time) most of the time, a reckless agressive player will be a losing player.

A smart agressive player will know when to be agressive, and to use that agression to his/her strengths to exploits the weaknesses of his/her opponents.

True, It's my 4th day at Full Tilt, the tables are pretty passive on that particular table I was on. Coming from bodog, where most players are recklessly aggressive, I've not had the chance to practise controlled aggression. I guess, it's time to learn something more about postflop play here.

Anyway, I got lucky this time and Villain shows 66. My 88 goes on to win unimproved.

The next time, I guess I'd fold this without a read. Small pot, small hand, big pot, big hand.
 
edge-t

edge-t

Rock Star
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Total posts
365
He initially made a pot sized bet. If you are confident that you have him beat then you did the right thing. If you aren't then you should of folded instead of the raise. Now all you can do is call...why not.

I wasn't confident, really. It's a really passive table, and I've been pushing the table around, stealing blinds when ever I can. The Villain wasn't involved in a lot of hands. I just thought I could push him out with a big raise.
 
Bombjack

Bombjack

Legend
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Total posts
2,389
Dammit you've posted the results already.

I think you played it fine. I raise weak-leaders here with air regularly, although I can see the argument for calling, especially since he has less than half a stack and you have showdown value.

90% of the time someone leads here, they have less than top pair. If he had a big hand he'd check-raise.

nh
 
Top