Now what...

[NuRelic]

*********** # 78 **************
pokerstars Game #15189689451: Hold'em No Limit ($0.05/$0.10) - 2008/02/10 - 07:17:09 (ET)
Table 'Sinope' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: JusteBelmont ($9.85 in chips)
Seat 2: 5pass ($5.30 in chips)
Seat 3: OneShady831 ($2.90 in chips)
Seat 4: NuRelic ($8.45 in chips)
Seat 5: croyable ($10.90 in chips)
Seat 7: nicomania ($12.30 in chips)
Seat 8: Hippel24 ($5.15 in chips)
Seat 9: Roven ($1.85 in chips)
5pass: posts small blind $0.05
OneShady831: posts big blind $0.10
echo bass: sits out
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to NuRelic []
NuRelic: calls $0.10
croyable: calls $0.10
nicomania: folds
Hippel24: folds
Roven: folds
JusteBelmont: folds
5pass: calls $0.05
OneShady831: checks
*** FLOP *** []
5pass: checks
OneShady831: checks
NuRelic: checks < Okay, I hit a set and there's no discernible Flush or Straight draws present. So I shouldn't be in too much danger by giving a free cards but I'm still hoping that someone's got an Ace and will bet at it.
croyable: bets $0.20 < It looks like we have a winner! A pot-sized bet from the player in position.
5pass: ca lls $0.20 < Oops, I wasn't expecting to get him to call, but that's okay because I already know he's a fairly loose player and semi-Call Station.
OneShady831: folds
NuRelic: calls $0.20 < Not seeing a whole lot of reason to change my initial plans so I just cold call the $0.20.
*** TURN *** []
5pass: checks
NuRelic: checks < The 5 of clubs signals the presence of a flush draw and I'm ready to punish anyone on a draw, but I'm willing to believe that croyable is going to make a bet to protect his Aces against that Flush, so I set up the Check/Raise.
croyable: bets $0.30 < Kinda weird, $.90 in the pot and he's bets out with only 1/3 of the pot?
5pass: calls $0.30 < Not sure what to make of this at first, but...
NuRelic: raises $1.20 to $1.50 < ...when the action comes back around to me I do wonder whether 5pass is on the Flush draw or maybe holding a weird straight. Even though I think he's a loose caller, I know he's not weak and as such it would seem very doubtful that if he did have a straight that he'd check then Cold Call with two other player players in the hand and more than 15xBB already in the pot. As result I put him on the FD and push.
croyable: raises $1.20 to $2.70
5pass: folds < I got what I was hoping for, soooo ...

...now what?

 

[c9h13no3]

1st, I wouldn't slowplay this flop. There's an ace out there, and a player with an ace will give you plenty of action. You can't get raised unless you bet, and you want to bloat this pot as large as possible.

Now raise him all in for the rest of his chips. You're behind 3 possible hands at this point (86, 36, and 23). You're much more likely to be up against 2-pair, a lower set, or just an ace.

Chips ---> middle

 

[Jillychemung]

I gotta agree that you need to bet the flop. Save the slow play for the absolute nuts, flopped quads, FH, rainbow S8. With your set you want to get it all in as soon as possible. Force a decision on the other players, give them the opportunity to make a mistake. If you try to squeeze the last penny out of your hands your variance will go way up.

 

[ChuckTs]

Chips ---> middle

^^^

Even if you are behind you have plenty of outs to fill up.

I'm also going to 3rd the motion for betting the flop. This is probably among the most ideal flops to slowplay in terms of how unlikely we are to be outdrawn, but with the ace out there we're also likely to get plenty of action from Ax so I just go ahead and bet it. We want to build the pot.

 

[phatjose]

I'm in the bet the flop camp. Any ace is going to play back at you, especially at these stakes. Also, if you were so inclined to check the flop (as you did), I think raising after it gets back to you is in order, since, again, the ace is not probably going anywhere given that flop.

Also, keep in mind that while it appears to be a harmless flop, the fact that there are 4 limpers means that someone may have been on a draw (either straight or flush after the turn). As played, this is snap shove, followed by delayed fist pump as villain calls with 2 pair.

 

[soonerdel]

you have to raise after he opens the betting on the flop.. then on the turn you have to go for it.. if he has a set of aces there is nothing you can do but pay him off.. dont play scared poker... play to win.... you cant worry about every bet and every scary card or scary board... to me you have the nuts so go for it

 

[NuRelic]

1st, I wouldn't slowplay this flop. There's an ace out there, and a player with an ace will give you plenty of action. You can't get raised unless you bet, and you want to bloat this pot as large as possible.

(I selected your quote because it was first, but my response goes to everyone that agreed with the sentiment)
Wait; there's no discernible SD or FD, both 5pass and OneShady831 have already checked and with one player left to act you'd bet with the intent of growing the pot? Why? There's little to no guarantee that croyable is holding an Ace, moreover with no PFR it would seem that if croyable was holding an Ace it would be a weak Ace at best. Betting the Flop might then scare that weak Ace away (the last thing I want to do. As result, it would seem that bloating the pot would hold a low probability of working since the probability of someone holding an Ace that they would push with is relatively low. With me holding a Middle Set I'm way out in front, so giving my opponents a chance to catch would seem plausible.

If this isn't a case where you would be willing to slow play a Set, what would be a case?

I'm going to post the rest of the hand a little later today, but I will say that checking the Flop wasn't my mistake on this hand.

 

[CfPoker]

As played shove this.

The only thing that stands out to me is your turn raise maybe not being big enough. A 6 gives him an OESD, also possible FD too. If i've worked it out right the pot stands at $1.60 when you make your raise. This takes it to $3.10. $1.20 to call doesn't give him the pot odds he needs to call this but you've shown strength now, so if he does his one of his outs he's won and can possibly take the rest of your chips.

 

[NuRelic]

you have to raise after he opens the betting on the flop.

No, I don't have to raise. There's not alot of reason to be so premature with my actions on the Flop, as pointed out in my earlier post because there's generally little value in it. However, I will admit that not taking advantage of playing-out the Check/Raise was my mistake in this hand.

then on the turn you have to go for it. if he has a set of aces there is nothing you can do but pay him off.. dont play scared poker... play to win.... you cant worry about every bet and every scary card or scary board...

Seriously, you think I'm playing scared? <snicker> No offense man, but the way I see the board, there's not much fro me to be afraid of, I'm highly favored to win. What did I type that made you think I was playing scared?

to me you have the nuts so go for it

No, at no point in this hand did I ever have the Nuts. There's at least three hands that beat me by the Turn and even more hands that can out-draw me on the River.

 

[ChuckTs]

You're really not making sense.

-it's probable that someone has an ace. Why? Because people at small stakes love aces, and are usually willing to commit a lot of chips. It doesn't matter if it's a weak ace - this is 10nl and they'll pay you off.

-slowplaying often a) lets your opponents draw out, b) makes the strength of your hand very obvious and c) doesn't get enough money in the pot

-we want to build the pot when we have a big hand like this. You have to think in terms of what your goal is with a hand. Right now it's pretty likely someone has an ace, and you want to bet into that person so that hopefully they raise, or at least call. That way you can get even more money in the pot as a significant favourite. Big hands deserve big pots.

-you say you want to slowplay because you want someone to catch something. What hand(s) specifically do you think can catch good enough at this point to pay you off with their whole stack?

Wait; there's no discernible SD or FD, both 5pass and OneShady831 have already checked and with one player left to act you'd bet with the intent of growing the pot? Why? There's little to no guarantee that croyable is holding an Ace, moreover with no PFR it would seem that if croyable was holding an Ace it would be a weak Ace at best.

...

I'm going to post the rest of the hand a little later today, but I will say that checking the Flop wasn't my mistake on this hand.

No, I don't have to raise. There's not alot of reason to be so premature with my actions on the Flop, as pointed out in my earlier post because there's generally little value in it.

lol

 

[NuRelic]

You're really not making sense.

Where am I not making sense?

-it's probable that someone has an ace. Why? Because people at small stakes love aces, and are usually willing to commit a lot of chips. It doesn't matter if it's a weak ace - this is 10nl and they'll pay you off.

Absolutely not my experience! However, I do hear this often from players that tend to think Low level players are dumb and Ace-happy. In my experience, there much more scared money at Micro levels then anything else.

-slowplaying often a) lets your opponents draw out, b) makes the strength of your hand very obvious and c) doesn't get enough money in the pot

(a) I've got a Set against a probable Ax - there's generally a low probability that my opponent is going to draw out on me.
(b) ...and I'm not making sense? You berate small stake players for loving Aces and willing to commit chips with any ace, but then give them credit for being able to sniff out an opponent who's slow-playing a Set? How does that work?
(c) No, not on any one hand but on-the-whole, I disagree. Camouflaging the strength of a hand tends to have big pay offs with players at this level and many of the recent post here at this Forum will tend to support that.

-we want to build the pot when we have a big hand like this. You have to think in terms of what your goal is with a hand. Right now it's pretty likely someone has an ace, and you want to bet into that person so that hopefully they raise, or at least call. That way you can get even more money in the pot as a significant favourite. Big hands deserve big pots.

Actually, it's not as likely as you think. There's only one player left to act after me and there's nothing that says he's going to be holding an Ace. I was hoping he did, but there's nothing to prove that he is likely to be holding an Ace and regardless how does that have any bearing on whether big hands deserve big pots? My goal is to extract as much money from my opponents as possible while minimizing my own losses. Chasing them off when I'm holding a monster, tends to not support that goal.

-you say you want to slowplay because you want someone to catch something. What hand(s) specifically do you think can catch good enough at this point to pay you off with their whole stack?

Easy - 2 Pair. Specifically, I'd say any Ax besides A7 or A4. Why is that so hard to understand?

So where am I not making sense? Finally, I don't understand what you were going for by reposting the two quotes I made. I could address them for you but I'm at a loss as to what you were going for.

What's amazing about this thread is that everyone immediately assumed that someone was holding an ace in this hand. It turns out, that wasn't the case...

PokerStars Game #15189689451: Hold'em No Limit ($0.05/$0.10) - 2008/02/10 - 07:17:09 (ET)
Table 'Sinope' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: JusteBelmont ($9.85 in chips)
Seat 2: 5pass ($5.30 in chips)
Seat 3: OneShady831 ($2.90 in chips)
Seat 4: NuRelic ($8.45 in chips)
Seat 5: croyable ($10.90 in chips)
Seat 7: nicomania ($12.30 in chips)
Seat 8: Hippel24 ($5.15 in chips)
Seat 9: Roven ($1.85 in chips)
5pass: posts small blind $0.05
OneShady831: posts big blind $0.10
echo bass: sits out
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to NuRelic []
NuRelic: calls $0.10
croyable: calls $0.10
nicomania: folds
Hippel24: folds
Roven: folds
JusteBelmont: folds
5pass: calls $0.05
OneShady831: checks
*** FLOP *** []
5pass: checks
OneShady831: checks
NuRelic: checks
croyable: bets $0.20
5pass: calls $0.20
OneShady831: folds
NuRelic: calls $0.20
*** TURN *** [][]
5pass: checks
NuRelic: checks
croyable: bets $0.30
5pass: calls $0.30
NuRelic: raises $1.20 to $1.50
croyable: raises $1.20 to $2.70
5pass: folds
NuRelic: raises $5.45 to $8.15 and is all-in
croyable: calls $5.45
*** RIVER *** [] []
*** SHOW DOWN ***
NuRelic: shows [] (three of a kind, Sevens)
croyable: shows [] (a straight, Four to Eight)
croyable collected $16.75 from pot



I did get all my money in the pot, but unfortunately I was behind to the Straight and looking for any one of ten outs.

 

[ChuckTs]

You might find this surprising, but the check-call, check-raise line will be a lot scarier to your opponents than just leading. It might fool some opponents at these stakes, but in general it's the single most obvious slowplay in the world.

Yet you talk about how a flop lead will scare Ax away!?

How is a 30c flop bet more likely to scare our opponent than check-calling and then check-raising the turn for $1.50+? You're talking about 'camouflaging' your hand but you're doing just the opposite.

You also talk about how you want Ax to fill aces up, but argue that we have no evidence that Ax is out there??

The point is we're up against a range of hands. Ax is a good portion of that range, and as such we want to bet into those hands, simple and plain. Hoping they hit two pair specifically with Ax is relying on an event that occurs way too infrequently to base your whole play on it.

Admittedly I have very little experience at 10nl, and your argument about the players actually being weak-tight might be true, but even then you'd want to be taking the flop lead line as the ch-c, ch-r line is way more likely to scare them off. Anyways what I do have experience at is 25nl through 100nl, and I can tell you right now that you'll be chewed up and spit out making plays like this. It's literally turning your hand right side up; you telegraph the strength of your hand here very obviously.

 

[Jillychemung]

I've got to applaud croyable's play here. S/He played suited connectors when S/He thought there was the possibility to have a multiple player limped flop and then had the draw checked all the way. So croy could disguise their draw and rep the A and try to take the pot there but still have outs to an even bigger hand. Perfect play by croy!!!

How certain are you that croy would have paid to see the turn if you had made a 'proper' bet on the flop?? And if croy had called it wouldn't you have slowed down on the turn? I think there is a little results oriented analysis here.

 

[zachvac]

Agree with Chuck here. The main point isn't that it's likely one of them has an A, it's that out of the hands that pay you off eventually, most of them are Ax. A lower set or 2 pair pays you off regardless, so you want to bet. An A will call if not raise, so a bet is good here. Unpaired cards will still be worried if they hit since the A is there already. A high pocket pair SHOULD (they may not, but read on) play the wa/wb strategy here, in which case they'd check behind or call your flop bet. If you bet they may also raise you to see where they're at. If you call or raise they probably give up after that. What hand specifically do you see getting more value out of by checking rather than betting?

Also, a check-raise is considered extremely strong. A check-call, check-raise is also extremely strong. It basically tells your opponent "I hit the flop, I wasn't scared at all so I just called you but now on the turn I want to get more money in the pot". I've found that at low limits you'll still run into the occaisional person who will see you check and think their 2nd pair is now good regardless of what happens after that, but that's very unlikely, and move up at all? Forget it. Check-raises are way over-used and have saved me a lot of money. I'll fold TPTK to a significant check-raise (read-dependent obviously) especially if they check-called the turn. That is one of the most obvious betting patterns out there (along with the check-call on the flop and turn and then betting the river. That indicates they have a monster because they didn't want us checking behind on the river).

 

[Jillychemung]

We also need to remember that we can't win every hand that we play (I wish) so we have to play based on ranges and what info we can glean from the bets/calls/raises. I just don't see many players having 86 in their ranges very often but I do see Ax a lot more. So while you need to be aware of the SD possibility on this flop, is the probability of there being a SD so high that you shouldn't lead on this flop, not in the games I play.

 

[NuRelic]

You might find this surprising, but the check-call, check-raise line will be a lot scarier to your opponents than just leading. It might fool some opponents at these stakes, but in general it's the single most obvious slowplay in the world.

Yet you talk about how a flop lead will scare Ax away!?

How is a 30c flop bet more likely to scare our opponent than check-calling and then check-raising the turn for $1.50+? You're talking about 'camouflaging' your hand but you're doing just the opposite.

You also talk about how you want Ax to fill aces up, but argue that we have no evidence that Ax is out there??

The point is we're up against a range of hands. Ax is a good portion of that range, and as such we want to bet into those hands, simple and plain. Hoping they hit two pair specifically with Ax is relying on an event that occurs way too infrequently to base your whole play on it.

Admittedly I have very little experience at 10nl, and your argument about the players actually being weak-tight might be true, but even then you'd want to be taking the flop lead line as the ch-c, ch-r line is way more likely to scare them off. Anyways what I do have experience at is 25nl through 100nl, and I can tell you right now that you'll be chewed up and spit out making plays like this. It's literally turning your hand right side up; you telegraph the strength of your hand here very obviously.

Couple things; I'm only playing at these levels because I was unemployed from October up to a month ago and I have played at 25nl thru 100nl. I would agree with you that slow playing is more readily identified, and I wouldn't do it there. I have adjusted my play to match my opponents playing skills.

Additionally, I only argue about the Aces because I was put in that position when everyone assume I was up against Aces. In the hand I was hoping I was up against Aces but there really wasn't any evidence to prove that was the case. I hoped croyable was betting the Ax but he was really bluff betting his position. Missing out on the check-raise was my mistake and I obviously paid for it. Sorry if I riled you up on this one.