Is bottom straight good?

[FuturisticHitman]

Where are you getting those figures from by the way? You're using a piece of software to work it out im guessing, what are you using?

 

[MercilessKiller]

In the hand you describe, 3♣4♣ vs A♠K♦ vs K♥Q♣ vs 7♠10♥, the equities are 25.99, 30.11, 19.59, 23.44 respectively. 3♣4♣ beats KQ and 7T and is very close behind AK.

You have a big problem in those odds.

You need to group AK, KQ and 7T together as it's 34 versus those types of hands. You've also assumed suits but one or 2 of the hands will prob be suited. the KQ could be clubs for example, ore ven the 7T.

 

[Bombjack]

Where are you getting those figures from by the way? You're using a piece of software to work it out im guessing, what are you using?

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_odds/texas_holdem

Feel free to play around. It doesn't make too much difference if the other hands are suited, although it's a bit of a bugger if they're the same suit as you. The point is that low suited connectors hold their own pre-flop, and because you have the button, there's a strong chance other players will make large post-flop mistakes since they always have to act before you.

 

[FuturisticHitman]

Cool, I use a program called "pokerstove" which is probably essentially the same sort of thing.

I'm willing to admit that the equity that 34s has in the hand against these types of hands is much better than i expected and I didnt think the results would show this. I'm actually suprised that it holds up so strongly against so many different types of hands, only if most are suited or if they share your suit are you loosing a lot of equity. But most the time it seems to have the second best equity against 3 others.

However, in relation to other points about the hand, it still takes a rather knowledgable and skillfull player to adapt and use this to his advantage. Yes people such as Daniel Negreanu play these hands exellently, but he is an amazing player, and we are no where near his skill level etc.

I still personally think at that level though, you dont need to be making too many calls like that preflop, still playing a primarily standard game will get you the money, of course if the situation arose where by you begin to need to be adapting and mixing up your game, go for it once in a while. My approach would primarily be to muck the hand, but of course the beauty of poker is that there isnt one fundamental approach to the game.

 

[zebranky]

knowing your opponent

Bombjack, its bad play from EP yes but that's what you can expect from most cash games right? Lol Think the OP mentioned that EP was tight? That would explain the play.

Actually, I think it was a pretty good play from EP, given who's at the table. He's got a loose guy and the button in the hand with him, nothing wrong with checking the flop, or calling on the turn (look how many outs he has for the nuts). The turn was bet and raised - given that he has a loose guy and a raiser in the pot with him, he can reasonably expect one of us to bet the river (as opposed to if he bets the river, and everyone probably folds).

 

[FuturisticHitman]

Thinking back now, one more thing I will say is I think the turn play could have been different, and therefore eliminating a difficult river situation. If you push all in on the turn, then I think a hand that liked the flop still likes the turn, since the deuce only helped the 34, and they're not putting you on that. I also think with two people in there, you want to really charge the draws the absolute maximum you can, and if the board pairs of flush card hits on the river, it doesnt matter if you're all in, cause you made the right play on the turn.

 

[stormswa]

here

I ran it by my other forum and most say they would raise with this hand preflop.

as for the river to call $16 ALL say its a easy call, because like I they realize they only have to win this hand 1 out of 5 times to make it a break even call and you are going to win it 1 out of 5 times.

most even put the guy on KhQh and still said call because in long run it is the correct call mathematically.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

I ran it by my other forum and most say they would raise with this hand preflop.

oh my. how on earth are they justifying this? raising is by far the worst thing you can do here as a standard - yeah I might raise a small percentage of the time at a very weak table (because with position I'm relatively confident I can outplay the 1 or 2 callers I am likely to get postflop), or at a very strong table (again, just for the purposes of 'changing up' my game and for deception), but raising here as standard is really, really horrible.

 

[stormswa]

because

oh my. how on earth are they justifying this? raising is by far the worst thing you can do here as a standard - yeah I might raise a small percentage of the time at a very weak table (because with position I'm relatively confident I can outplay the 1 or 2 callers I am likely to get postflop), or at a very strong table (again, just for the purposes of 'changing up' my game and for deception), but raising here as standard is really, really horrible.

because they realize by how the other players are playing that they are weak, I didnt say everytime did I? If I did then it was a miss-type, but in this paticular hand I along with them would raise. Most players there are very very strong players and if you sense weakness in your opponents it dosent matter what your 2 down cards are, you can play it blind.

 

[zebranky]

I ran it by my other forum and most say they would raise with this hand preflop.

most even put the guy on KhQh and still said call because in long run it is the correct call mathematically.

wow, this has to be the most horrible statement I hear in poker. If you put your opponent on the best hand (and that there is no way to make him fold it, of course), then it is always a fold. I don't care if its only $1 more in a $500 pot, if you're sure the other guy has the best hand, don't waste your money.
Here, I called because I wasn't sure he had the best hand, but the check-raise by a player I know won't do that without the nuts was enough for me to fold to - even though it was better than 5:1 odds on the pot. I'm not gonna throw good money after bad when I know I'm beat.

If you put the guy on KhQh and can't bluff him off, how is it mathematically correct? 0% chance of a fold, 0% chance of winning the showdown. sounds like a longterm loser!

 

[stormswa]

wow, this has to be the most horrible statement I hear in poker. If you put your opponent on the best hand (and that there is no way to make him fold it, of course), then it is always a fold. I don't care if its only $1 more in a $500 pot, if you're sure the other guy has the best hand, don't waste your money.
Here, I called because I wasn't sure he had the best hand, but the check-raise by a player I know won't do that without the nuts was enough for me to fold to - even though it was better than 5:1 odds on the pot. I'm not gonna throw good money after bad when I know I'm beat.

If you put the guy on KhQh and can't bluff him off, how is it mathematically correct? 0% chance of a fold, 0% chance of winning the showdown. sounds like a longterm loser!

just because you think he has the hand dosent mean he does, if he dosent have it one time then you break even. Again just because you say "I think he has KQ dosent mean you should fold", its like saying I think he has so and so but im willing to pay 5-1 to see. All you got to do is win one time. You seriously telling me every time on the river where you think you just got outdrawn you have never ever called? I mean hell you are getting 5-1 and you have a strong hand.

 

[ChuckTs]

That's the thing is that you have to be %100 sure you're beat. If you're that sure that you're beat, then you're lying to yourself.

I expect to see two pair and maybe sets here to call. You're getting great pot odds.

Also: can we apply Harrington's >%10 bluffing law here? I really don't see villain trying a pathetic bluff like this on the river, but doesn't the law say that it applies all the time?

 

[stormswa]

yes

That's the thing is that you have to be %100 sure you're beat. If you're that sure that you're beat, then you're lying to yourself.

I expect to see two pair and maybe sets here to call. You're getting great pot odds.

Also: can we apply Harrington's >%10 bluffing law here? I really don't see villain trying a pathetic bluff like this on the river, but doesn't the law say that it applies all the time?

agreed and all that has to happen is that they ahve that one time then you break even making this call. and if they have it 2 times then you make profit.

 

[zebranky]

That's the thing is that you have to be %100 sure you're beat. If you're that sure that you're beat, then you're lying to yourself.

I expect to see two pair and maybe sets here to call. You're getting great pot odds.

Also: can we apply Harrington's >%10 bluffing law here? I really don't see villain trying a pathetic bluff like this on the river, but doesn't the law say that it applies all the time?

It's true the odds are great on the 1st call (the newer player that I'm not sure what he has - yes, the KQh is possible, but not certain). That's a call, easily done. But for the TAG who I've played a lot of hands with and know that he wouldn't bluff all-in on the river, I'm certain I'm behind and there's no point in calling. Being "priced in" just doesn't apply when you know you're beat. Yes, there's a theoretical chance he is bluffing, but that's where knowing the players habits and having good reads comes in.

 

[ChuckTs]

Fair enough; if you think you've got a read on your opponent which is good enough to give you %100 accuracy and allow you to fold, then great. But how many hands have you played with him would you guess?

I have to say I have players online with 2K+ hands (not much, I know, but I'd guess that you haven't played more than several hundred with any one player you see in a casino), and these players have made moves completely uncharacteristic to their past play. I mean 15/10 players (very TAG) call all ins preflop with baby pairs, make ridiculous unorthodox bluffs, and other such plays. You can't always discount the possibility that the player is making a poor play. Here, my opinion is that ace-face, A-5 and A-2, and sets aswell as bluffs come in often enough to match the 5:1 odds you're getting.


EDIT:

MP is new and loose with $50

But for the TAG who I've played a lot of hands with and know that he wouldn't bluff all-in on the river, I'm certain I'm behind and there's no point in calling.

Is he TAG or loose???

 

[stormswa]

yes

It's true the odds are great on the 1st call (the newer player that I'm not sure what he has - yes, the KQh is possible, but not certain). That's a call, easily done. But for the TAG who I've played a lot of hands with and know that he wouldn't bluff all-in on the river, I'm certain I'm behind and there's no point in calling. Being "priced in" just doesn't apply when you know you're beat. Yes, there's a theoretical chance he is bluffing, but that's where knowing the players habits and having good reads comes in.

yea I wasnt talking about the push behind I was talking about the $16, once he pushes after im folding.

I will take the $16 loss as 1 of the 5 I need to win that I didnt.

 

[ChuckTs]

OH now I see...I'm getting the players mixed up now. So the $16 or $18 from MP you call, but fold to a shove behind you - my mistake. A shove to a bet + call is obviously great strength, and you'd have to fold.

 

[zebranky]

OH now I see...I'm getting the players mixed up now. So the $16 or $18 from MP you call, but fold to a shove behind you - my mistake. A shove to a bet + call is obviously great strength, and you'd have to fold.

hmm... I think we've cleared up the confusion already, but I'll restate it just in case the kids at home didn't catch it.

It's a 3 way pot, with a well-known TAG 1st, Loose 2nd, Hero 3rd.
TAG (who's been calling down all the way to the river) checks, Loose bets essentially all in for $16.

As everyone suggests, I call here - 5:1 odds, and there's a decent chance (greater than 20%, IMO) that I have the better hand.

TAG goes all in behind me, for $20 or so more.
I still get better than 5:1 to call (130ish pot, 20 to call), but the fact that I know he wouldn't bluff here AND the check-raise mean I'm certain I'm beat, and I fold.

 

[stormswa]

yep

hmm... I think we've cleared up the confusion already, but I'll restate it just in case the kids at home didn't catch it.

It's a 3 way pot, with a well-known TAG 1st, Loose 2nd, Hero 3rd.
TAG (who's been calling down all the way to the river) checks, Loose bets essentially all in for $16.

As everyone suggests, I call here - 5:1 odds, and there's a decent chance (greater than 20%, IMO) that I have the better hand.

TAG goes all in behind me, for $20 or so more.
I still get better than 5:1 to call (130ish pot, 20 to call), but the fact that I know he wouldn't bluff here AND the check-raise mean I'm certain I'm beat, and I fold.

yep and I agree with your play 100% there, after a bet and a call you have to have a very very strong hand to raise. So fold is obvious play, most people I have pooled about this hand have said call the $16 and fold to a re-raise.

 

[MercilessKiller]

what would EP be playing with on the turn? that's what told me it was a flush draw.

Calling the $16 on the river without EP is a fine play. But with EP still yet to act its just not a profitable move! I can't see any different. Not from what the play suggests. Thats in THIS situation i'm talking about

 

[ChuckTs]

Same as above; completely agree. A shove over the top of a bet and call on the river has to mean great strength - especially coming from a TAG player.

 

[stormswa]

ok

these 2 different hand history rivers are screwing me up. I thought the guy who beat $16 had A2 is that correct? and the guy who pushed behind you had KhQh.

the only other thing I can think of is guy bet $16 with his flush and dude pushed over the top after a call with A2, if that is true that is terrible. Mercy keeps saying the guy that had us beat was the one betting $16 I thought it was other way around.

heck/raising)

$101 pot
River 10♥
EP checks, MP bets $16.
?

are you telling me EP check his flush? if he did thats terrible, he chases down and hits and checks out of position?!?!? come to think of it the other way around its terrible to, come over top with A2. Either way its horrible, how can you chase all the way down then finally hit and check, and why would MP bet $16 with just 2 pair. This whole hand was played silly by both villans.

 

[MercilessKiller]

...Even if the guy who bet $16 had nothing, the EP had represented a draw by his turn play.. thus the check goes to his style of checking a montser on the river which I believe was the case?

EP did check his flus I think. The point i'm making is it it was just Hero v Villain, then call the $16 yes. But with a TAG behind representing a draw (which has been hit on the river), i'd find it a lot harder to call!!!!!

 

[stormswa]

well

...Even if the guy who bet $16 had nothing, the EP had represented a draw by his turn play.. thus the check goes to his style of checking a montser on the river which I believe was the case?

EP did check his flus I think. The point i'm making is it it was just Hero v Villain, then call the $16 yes. But with a TAG behind representing a draw (which has been hit on the river), i'd find it a lot harder to call!!!!!

I cant believe dude pushed all in with that board with just A2, that just baffles me, even at that level. I would be more then thrilled to check that threw with A2 and then laugh at EP for checking the nuts.


Ok think we can agree you had the odds to call the $16 but with someone still to act we wouldnt blame you for folding? Fair everyone?

 

[ChuckTs]

Agreed! Now I need a beer...