ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
I just thought i'd throw this out there:
$1/$2 NLHE 10-handed ring game, and i'm playing very tight aggressive.
The table is generally limps all around, and not too many PF raises.
I get this hand, and hit my set! Lovely...
I almost never play my monster hands like i did this one...
I guess i thought i could trap one of the many top-pair-overvaluing donkeys at the table who possibly hit the ace.
But this is what i mean when i say this is the wrong way to play a set (or any monster hand for that matter):
Situation one: My opponents have nothing or are drawing. If I bet, they either fold, or call in hopes of hitting their straight or flush. This is good because i'm getting as much money off them as possible. I'm making them pay to draw. If i were to check to the river (like i did DOH), they haven't put a penny in and they get to see 2 free cards.
Situation two: They have hit their piece of the flop, say the ace. A check raise isn't a terrible play (which is what i was trying to do) but leading is much better.
Say you check, he bets $18 into the $27 pot. You raise 2 or 3 times that, so $36 or $54. This is only a $27 pot, so there is a good chance you've just shut him out as he can't call with a weak ace for that price. (I'm assuming it is a weak ace because there was no PF raise. Even a strong ace would think twice before calling here.)
So for a very strong hand, a set you've only made $45 not including your raise.
Now say you lead out. You bet $18 into the $27 pot, and he, with his ace paired, raises 2 or 3 times that. So again, $36 or $54. Now you reraise him right there for everything he's got left. He now has a decision to make. Poker is all about making your opponents make tough decisions. Anyways, he now has put a total of $9 PF plus up to $54 on the flop. He's pretty pot-committed now and at these limits, would probably push. He also isn't putting you on a set since you lead out and usually players he's seen don't do that.
So basically my point is that you don't want to check-raise with monsters because all you'll be doing is shutting them out. Leading out is the best option because you make the most out of it.
Another thing worth mentioning here is leading into the raiser.
If you are the caller instead of the aggressor (the raiser) preflop, then it is usually if not always a better idea to lead into the raiser when you hit a monster hand. Just as with the previous example, you'd be shutting him out if you check-raised.
Say you have 77 and you put your opponent on a big ace. An ace flops, but so does a 7. If you bet, he's got to raise you because he's got top pair with a big kicker - if not for value, he's got to do it for information. Anyways it's the same deal; if you check-raise, he immediately puts you on at least 2 pair or set and will probably fold. Conversely if you lead out then push his reraise, he's pot-committed and will probably stack off with you.
Just thought i'd share my opinion/strategy on that
...holy crap that was longer than i thought :/
$1/$2 NLHE 10-handed ring game, and i'm playing very tight aggressive.
The table is generally limps all around, and not too many PF raises.
I get this hand, and hit my set! Lovely...
I almost never play my monster hands like i did this one...
I guess i thought i could trap one of the many top-pair-overvaluing donkeys at the table who possibly hit the ace.
But this is what i mean when i say this is the wrong way to play a set (or any monster hand for that matter):
Situation one: My opponents have nothing or are drawing. If I bet, they either fold, or call in hopes of hitting their straight or flush. This is good because i'm getting as much money off them as possible. I'm making them pay to draw. If i were to check to the river (like i did DOH), they haven't put a penny in and they get to see 2 free cards.
Situation two: They have hit their piece of the flop, say the ace. A check raise isn't a terrible play (which is what i was trying to do) but leading is much better.
Say you check, he bets $18 into the $27 pot. You raise 2 or 3 times that, so $36 or $54. This is only a $27 pot, so there is a good chance you've just shut him out as he can't call with a weak ace for that price. (I'm assuming it is a weak ace because there was no PF raise. Even a strong ace would think twice before calling here.)
So for a very strong hand, a set you've only made $45 not including your raise.
Now say you lead out. You bet $18 into the $27 pot, and he, with his ace paired, raises 2 or 3 times that. So again, $36 or $54. Now you reraise him right there for everything he's got left. He now has a decision to make. Poker is all about making your opponents make tough decisions. Anyways, he now has put a total of $9 PF plus up to $54 on the flop. He's pretty pot-committed now and at these limits, would probably push. He also isn't putting you on a set since you lead out and usually players he's seen don't do that.
So basically my point is that you don't want to check-raise with monsters because all you'll be doing is shutting them out. Leading out is the best option because you make the most out of it.
Another thing worth mentioning here is leading into the raiser.
If you are the caller instead of the aggressor (the raiser) preflop, then it is usually if not always a better idea to lead into the raiser when you hit a monster hand. Just as with the previous example, you'd be shutting him out if you check-raised.
Say you have 77 and you put your opponent on a big ace. An ace flops, but so does a 7. If you bet, he's got to raise you because he's got top pair with a big kicker - if not for value, he's got to do it for information. Anyways it's the same deal; if you check-raise, he immediately puts you on at least 2 pair or set and will probably fold. Conversely if you lead out then push his reraise, he's pot-committed and will probably stack off with you.
Just thought i'd share my opinion/strategy on that
...holy crap that was longer than i thought :/
