TPTK slowplay flop wrong?

zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
Stacks: - sunshine-1 with $5.40 - zachvac with $11.85 - marina222 with $0.55 - FightinAmish with $8.95 - Sceletor666 with $2.40 - crhodes86 with $5.10 - sing_sing2-5 with $11.25

index.pl


index.pl

Blinds: $0.00/$0.00
Site: pokerstars
* - Dealt to zachvac:
ks.gif
ad.gif

* - Sklansky group 2
Preflop:
* - crhodes86 calls [$0.10]
**- 1 players fold.
* - sunshine-1 calls [$0.10]
* - zachvac raises $0.30 to $0.40
**- 4 players fold.
* - sunshine-1 calls [$0.30]
* - Total folds this street: 5
* - Potsize: $1.05
Flop:
kc.gif
5h.gif
4s.gif

* - sunshine-1: checks
* - zachvac: checks
* - Potsize: $1.05
Turn:
8d.gif

* - sunshine-1 bets [$1.80]

I can hardly fold here. Was I wrong to check behind on the flop? It could easily be a bluff or he could have something like 67. Because of his stack, if I flat call here, I'm basically pot committed to call an all-in bet. Flat calling and check-calling gives villain pot control where if he has the best of it (2 pair, set, straight) he'll put it all in or if he doesn't he will check it down. I checked the flop because the board did not look scary at all. The 8 is not a particular scary card unless he's holding 67. I just don't understand this over-bet here. What's the next move here?
https://www.cardschat.com
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
The thing with slow play is that you have entered into a conscious decision to smooth call when villain makes a move. SO!, you have to smooth call here, or join the multitudes who have decided to give up slow playing in favor of the straight forward collection of the pot.:D

In the case where he had 67, and was on the draw, and hit, there will be no way to get away from this other than folding now.

You made your bed, and it still has wrinkles in it!;)

Personally I could easily fold to that bet, or not. Villain could just as easily have taken your check as a sign of indecision, or downright weakness, and decided to fire at the pot, representing the 67. Questions I would ask myself in that spot might include, -have I seen him showdown something like a 67, and what his general table image is.
 
B

bw07507

Legend
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Total posts
2,219
Do you have any stats/notes (He overbets on bluffs, etc.) on the villain here? This might help.

As for the hand, I would have raised it a tad bit higher preflop as their are 2 limpers already in the pot.

After the flop, you have a good hand, TPTK. It helps to know what type of player you are against. If he is a calling station/fish then slowplaying is not the right play, b/c he will probably be calling bets and you want to be building the pot while you are ahead of his range. If he is a weak/tight player I dont mind the slowplay as there are no real draws here that fit his range.

After the turn, I cant really see you getting away from this hand. It looks to me like he is trying to just take the pot from you there on a bluff. I dont think a straight will bet that much here since he will want you to stay in the hand. I might flat call this and hope he takes another stab on the river.
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Total posts
13,642
A few things...

First, I raise more pf - 50c or 60c or so. You're making it too cheap for the raggy hands.

I also bet this flop. We're not really wa/wb so that concept doesn't apply here since there's a draw out there. We also want value from Kx and other small pairs that are usually played poorly enough to call us down for a couple streets.

After checking though, you have to call this down because you're inducing bluffs and more aggressive play from the KT type hands. By folding you're giving up both the missed value from Kx, as well as caving in to the bluffs. It does look like 67/88/55/44 but it could also easily be like KQ or 99 as well, or even air (villain's stats?).
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
This was one of th last hands at the table, so these stats were what I saw as well:

only 18 hands (this includes this one though)
VP$IP=38.89
AF=4.00
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
A few things...

First, I raise more pf - 50c or 60c or so. You're making it too cheap for the raggy hands.


Don't I want a call? I usually either do 3x or 4x PF, and there's many times when that won't get a call. Do you think I should raise that much most of the time when I raise, or just with hands like AK, that are strong hands but still miss the majority of flops?
 
P

pkrook

Rock Star
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Total posts
211
Dont know what to say, play is play on play on...
 
A

alan1983

Visionary
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Total posts
641
Nothing wrong with checking the flop i think, since there are no overcards and flush draws, and only one hand thatd have a draw here.

Now, if youre checking and slowplaying against a shortstack, why the hell are you getting spooked at the first bet he makes? I dont get it.

Plus this being 10NL. Easy call for me. SOrry if he had k8 or 67.
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
Nothing wrong with checking the flop i think, since there are no overcards and flush draws, and only one hand thatd have a draw here.

Now, if youre checking and slowplaying against a shortstack, why the hell are you getting spooked at the first bet he makes? I dont get it.

Plus this being 10NL. Easy call for me. SOrry if he had k8 or 67.

Because the shortstack made an over pot bet, almost twice the pot. Is this a bluff? Protecting his hand?
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Total posts
13,642
Don't I want a call? I usually either do 3x or 4x PF, and there's many times when that won't get a call. Do you think I should raise that much most of the time when I raise, or just with hands like AK, that are strong hands but still miss the majority of flops?

It's because we have the limpers; nothing to do with the hand. And no, I don't particularly want a call with AK, but I don't mind one. It's not quite strong enough to make suck bets when you haven't yet improved to at least a pair.

Anyways if you open for 40c with no limpers behind you, you give anyone out of the blinds a 1.375:1 price on their money, as well as a 1.57:1 and 1.83:1 price for the SB and BB respectively.

If you open for 40c when you have two limpers behind you for example, you give a non-blind player a 1.67:1 price, the SB a 2.14:1 price, and the BB (or one of the limpers) a 2.5:1 price on their money, which is too good.

In regards to the specific hands, I'm opening for exactly the same amount every time: 3BB+1BB per limper. Raising certain amounts with certain hands only reveals the strength of your hand to observant players.
 
A

alan1983

Visionary
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Total posts
641
Because the shortstack made an over pot bet, almost twice the pot. Is this a bluff? Protecting his hand?


Well, i wouldnt equate overbets with monsters in any way. If he has a monster, he has nothing to protect against.

So either he wants full value for his monster, or he has one of tons of marginal hands, which you checked to get a bet out from, or hes bluffing.

Me, at 10NL and a pot overbet by a shortstack, i say youre ahead here most of the time and i call.
 
S

switch0723

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Total posts
8,430
Didnt we check the flop to induce this bet? No that we have it i think we should push all in here, since if we call we are compelled to call the river, so we may aswell push it all in now and get him off any draws he might have. I think his overbet is an attempted steal or he has a hand he isnt sure if its the best or not, if he had you beat i think he would have probably value bet it.

P.S. Top pair top kicker isnt good enough to slowplay when your last to act on a flop, if your oop on flop you can check it then re raise it, but basically you are giving away a free card
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
It's because we have the limpers; nothing to do with the hand. And no, I don't particularly want a call with AK, but I don't mind one. It's not quite strong enough to make suck bets when you haven't yet improved to at least a pair.

Anyways if you open for 40c with no limpers behind you, you give anyone out of the blinds a 1.375:1 price on their money, as well as a 1.57:1 and 1.83:1 price for the SB and BB respectively.

If you open for 40c when you have two limpers behind you for example, you give a non-blind player a 1.67:1 price, the SB a 2.14:1 price, and the BB (or one of the limpers) a 2.5:1 price on their money, which is too good.

In regards to the specific hands, I'm opening for exactly the same amount every time: 3BB+1BB per limper. Raising certain amounts with certain hands only reveals the strength of your hand to observant players.

Thanks for the explanation, but I do want to comment on the theory that you should open for the exact same amount regardless of your hand.

1. At $10NL I don't feel there are very many observant people to notice which hands I'm raising more with or less with.

2. Got this part from Sklansky (and someone else, forget who)'s "NLHE Theory and Practice"

Basically in general you want to make the correct play most of the time. This means betting when you have the best hand, giving just bad enough odds that draws can't call profitably but are tempted to draw without odds, and basically play every hand as if you could see the opponent's hand.

But if you do that, people will see through you. If you never bluff, people simply fold to your bets unless they have a good hand. So you need to mix it up. Same thing preflop. Here's the quote from the book.

"Lots of no limit teachers give a rather peculiar piece of advice. They recommend that you always make the same size raises, no matter what hand you hold. Whether you have KK or 78s raise the same amount every time. They may tell you to alter your raise size based on your position. Or to alter it based on the number of limpers. But never to alter it based on what's in your hand.

Their rationale is that you can betray information about the quality of your holding by raising different amounts. So, to keep your opponents guessing, always raise the same amount. This advice strikes us like cutting off your leg to cure your athlete's foot. Sure, you don't want to give away extra information through your raise sizes. And sure, some players do manage to do just that. But, as we saw in the last chapter, you can raise preflop for a variety of reasons, and some of those reasons prefer differently-sized raises. If you artificially limit your options to avoid giving away information, you soften up your entire preflop strategy.

Embrace it. Different hands in different situations call for differently-sized raises. If you are worried about giving away information, you need only to mix up your play occasionally. For instance, say you want to raise 6x the blind. Every so often, raise only 3x instead. And vice versa - raise 6x occasionally when you would normally raise 3x. Mathematically, you can calculate an optimal percentage of the time to swap your plays. But, in practice, that isn't necessary. Just do it often enough so your opponents know you might be mixing things up, and they have significant doubt about whether you hold a 3x hand or a 6x hand. (Or, rather, so that they should have significant doubt. Some players seem to think they are clairvoyant and are happy to "put you on a hand," no matter how suspect their evidence might be. Your job is just to make sure their evidence is sufficiently suspect.)"

"Big raises make big pots. Small raises (and no raises) make small pots"
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
Well now that enough people have commented, I guess there's no harm in me giving the results. I raised, he called, has 88 for the turned set.

Although I think switch nailed it, probably shouldn't have checked the flop, and paid for it when I gave him the free draw to one of 2 cards that helps his hand.

This is the kind of thing I was thinking I wanted to happen when I slowplay something like that, although I realize I'm OOP here. Basically they may think their decent hand is now best when I check. Although I think overall I was just trying to be a bit too tricky.

POKERSTARS GAME #14308515708: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($0.05/$0.10) - 2008/01/04 - 00:53:19 (ET)
Table 'Jena II' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: cb4mvp ($10.25 in chips)
Seat 2: Hog Wash Man ($10.60 in chips)
Seat 3: costy5555 ($5.25 in chips)
Seat 4: langz_no1 ($8.85 in chips)
Seat 5: JavPin ($17.25 in chips)
Seat 6: Madkil ($3.45 in chips)
Seat 7: zachvac ($9.90 in chips)
Seat 8: Draw Button ($1.55 in chips)
Seat 9: Greywolf 9 ($8.15 in chips)
zachvac: posts small blind $0.05
Draw Button: posts big blind $0.10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to zachvac [Ad Jh]
Greywolf 9: folds
cb4mvp: raises $0.30 to $0.40
Hog Wash Man: folds
costy5555: folds
langz_no1: folds
JavPin: folds
Madkil: folds
zachvac: calls $0.35
Draw Button: folds
*** FLOP *** [Ah 5d Kc]
zachvac: checks
cb4mvp: bets $0.70
zachvac: calls $0.70
*** TURN *** [Ah 5d Kc] [3d]
zachvac: bets $0.80
cb4mvp: calls $0.80
*** RIVER *** [Ah 5d Kc 3d] [9s]
zachvac: bets $1
cb4mvp: calls $1
*** SHOW DOWN ***
zachvac: shows [Ad Jh] (a pair of Aces)
cb4mvp: mucks hand
zachvac collected $5.65 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $5.90 | Rake $0.25
Board [Ah 5d Kc 3d 9s]
Seat 1: cb4mvp mucked [Kd Jc]
Seat 2: Hog Wash Man folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: costy5555 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: langz_no1 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: JavPin folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Madkil (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: zachvac (small blind) showed [Ad Jh] and won ($5.65) with a pair of Aces
Seat 8: Draw Button (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 9: Greywolf 9 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Total posts
13,642
Thanks for the explanation, but I do want to comment on the theory that you should open for the exact same amount regardless of your hand.

1. At $10NL I don't feel there are very many observant people to notice which hands I'm raising more with or less with.

2. Got this part from Sklansky (and someone else, forget who)'s "NLHE Theory and Practice"...

Well I think we could argue for a long time about pf raising amounts. I mean look at the professional players - even they argue about it. Jesus says raise 3BB every single hand, whereas sklansky apparently has a different pov too.

I don't disagree with Sklansky on this, but I don't think he's saying you should be raising 5BB with KK+, and 3BB with every thing else every time either. I admittedly do actually raise exactly 3.5BB+1BB/limper when I multitable even though I don't think that raising that exact same amount is ideal either.

Good point about 1), but why are we raising so small then? If they're not paying attention, don't we want to raise our premiums to bigger amounts pf?
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Total posts
13,642
Well now that enough people have commented, I guess there's no harm in me giving the results. I raised, he called, has 88 for the turned set.

Although I think switch nailed it, probably shouldn't have checked the flop, and paid for it when I gave him the free draw to one of 2 cards that helps his hand.

I still agree that you should have bet the flop, but not strictly because you gave a free card (and got outdrawn) - I think it's because you lose value from a lot of worse hands that will pay you off anyways.

The reasoning behind the wa/wb concept and the passive call down is that you're doing it to induce action from hands that normally would fold to a flop bet, but would possibly either call down turn/river bets or do the betting themselves. As well as the fact that you're saving money vs monsters and not minding giving free cards to long-shot draws. So when a player's probably willing to call those wb hands anyways, there's no use in slowplaying.
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
I still agree that you should have bet the flop, but not strictly because you gave a free card (and got outdrawn) - I think it's because you lose value from a lot of worse hands that will pay you off anyways.

The reasoning behind the wa/wb concept and the passive call down is that you're doing it to induce action from hands that normally would fold to a flop bet, but would possibly either call down turn/river bets or do the betting themselves. As well as the fact that you're saving money vs monsters and not minding giving free cards to long-shot draws. So when a player's probably willing to call those wb hands anyways, there's no use in slowplaying.

Right, and I think it's reasonable to say that even if I bet the flop the results would have been the same. The results aren't what is important. Thanks for the help.
 
Top