Pocket J's with a fishie on the line

Lana_Faith

Lana_Faith

Guest
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Total posts
190
It's a beautiful thing when fishies get hooked. That is all.

pokerstars Game #8797901504: Hold'em Pot Limit (5/10) - 2007/03/08 - 10:34:10 (ET)
Table 'Gallia II' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #8 is the button
Seat 1: FIRESHOOTER (2107 in chips)
Seat 2: bmwMARIO (5016 in chips)
Seat 4: pesche222 (3740 in chips)
Seat 5: supersport61 (114 in chips)
Seat 7: lanafaith (3711 in chips)
Seat 8: Doorman.ale (1196 in chips)
Seat 9: voltijunkie (1131 in chips)
voltijunkie: posts small blind 5
FIRESHOOTER: posts big blind 10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to lanafaith [Jd Js]
bmwMARIO: calls 10
pesche222: calls 10
supersport61: raises 10 to 20
lanafaith: raises 35 to 55
Doorman.ale: calls 55
voltijunkie: calls 50
FIRESHOOTER: calls 45
bmwMARIO: calls 45
pesche222: calls 45
supersport61: raises 45 to 100
lanafaith: raises 300 to 400
Doorman.ale: folds
voltijunkie: calls 345
FIRESHOOTER: folds
bmwMARIO: calls 345
pesche222: folds
supersport61: calls 14 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [3s 7h 8s]
voltijunkie: checks
bmwMARIO: checks
lanafaith: bets 500
voltijunkie: folds
bmwMARIO: calls 500
*** TURN *** [3s 7h 8s] [9c]
bmwMARIO: checks
lanafaith: bets 500
bmwMARIO: calls 500
*** RIVER *** [3s 7h 8s 9c] [4c]
bmwMARIO: checks
FIRESHOOTER said, "about 70 down here"
lanafaith: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
bmwMARIO: shows [7c Qd] (a pair of Sevens)
lanafaith: shows [Jd Js] (a pair of Jacks)
lanafaith collected 2858 from side pot
supersport61: mucks hand
lanafaith collected 621 from main pot
supersport61 leaves the table
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3479 Main pot 621. Side pot 2858. | Rake 0
Board [3s 7h 8s 9c 4c]
Seat 1: FIRESHOOTER (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: bmwMARIO showed [7c Qd] and lost with a pair of Sevens
Seat 4: pesche222 folded before Flop
Seat 5: supersport61 mucked [8h Qh]
Seat 7: lanafaith showed [Jd Js] and won (3479) with a pair of Jacks
Seat 8: Doorman.ale (button) folded before Flop
Seat 9: voltijunkie (small blind) folded on the Flop
 
Lana_Faith

Lana_Faith

Guest
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Total posts
190
yes i saw that... not sure what made me not bet it, only i was afraid of a fishie calling me YET AGAIN and having pulled 2 pair or a str8 or something else miraculous.
 
t1riel

t1riel

Legend
Joined
May 20, 2005
Total posts
6,914
Awards
1
I like the aggressive play on Pocket Jacks. This is the way Pocket Jacks should be played. A bet on the river would have been nice though.
 
Lana_Faith

Lana_Faith

Guest
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Total posts
190
I like the aggressive play on Pocket Jacks. This is the way Pocket Jacks should be played. A bet on the river would have been nice though.

Thank you, good sir knight! :D
 
ychennay

ychennay

Guest
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Total posts
21
Just a general question... If you're at a table with calling stations, why would you want to raise big preflop with a big hand? Everyone is just going to call and someone's probably going to suckout. I never raise preflop at play money tables unless people have demonstrated the capability to fold.
 
Irexes

Irexes

Legend
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Total posts
7,016
Just a general question... If you're at a table with calling stations, why would you want to raise big preflop with a big hand? Everyone is just going to call and someone's probably going to suckout. I never raise preflop at play money tables unless people have demonstrated the capability to fold.

You've got it backwards. You want players to call you with worse hands.

You will lose when they suck out but make a whole lot more on the far greater amount of times that you win.

You are essentially suggesting keeping the pot small when you have the best hand and that can't be good.
 
P

Prolaznik

Rock Star
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Total posts
217
You are essentially suggesting keeping the pot small when you have the best hand and that can't be good.
Best hand before flop isn't worth much. I agree with ychennay

What's the reason of preflop raising?

a) to drive people out

b) to make people put money in pot, before they see that they are underdogs

If they stay in pot anyway, then there is no reason to put too much money preflop...
 
Jack Daniels

Jack Daniels

Charcoal Mellowed
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Total posts
13,414
Best hand before flop isn't worth much. I agree with ychennay

What's the reason of preflop raising?

a) to drive people out

b) to make people put money in pot, before they see that they are underdogs

If they stay in pot anyway, then there is no reason to put too much money preflop...
You say you agree with ychennay, but your reasons for raising support Irexes point. Yes, you do raise for those reasons, but the purposes they serve are mutually exclusive. Even with some known calling stations at the table, there are still levels of calling station in addition to the other players. You will drive out some of the players by raising, so point A is served. The remaining players (which there will be less of because you raised) will more than likely then be putting money in the pot before knowing they are underdogs, hence serving point B. Sure the remaining players will catch cards and beat you on occasion which is why JJ is not 100% to win, but by driving out the players first and getting other money in bad second reduces the times this will happen. This results in +ev long term. And with a hand vulnerable as JJ is, limping isn't the better play. Limping just allows more players into the pot which creates additional opportunities to be outdrawn.
 
F Paulsson

F Paulsson

euro love
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Total posts
5,799
Just a general question... If you're at a table with calling stations, why would you want to raise big preflop with a big hand? Everyone is just going to call and someone's probably going to suckout. I never raise preflop at play money tables unless people have demonstrated the capability to fold.
The quickest way to demonstrate why you're wrong:

You're playing in a (admittedly weird) tournament where everyone is dealt their cards face up except you. You're dealt AK. You calculate your exact chance of winning to be 25% given your six opponents' hole cards. Everyone goes all-in before it gets to you.

Do you see why folding is terribly wrong, despite only winning one time in four?

Do you then also see why "someone is probably going to suckout" is a flawed reason for not raising?
 
Bombjack

Bombjack

Legend
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Total posts
2,389
The quickest way to demonstrate why you're wrong:

You're playing in a (admittedly weird) tournament where everyone is dealt their cards face up except you. You're dealt AK. You calculate your exact chance of winning to be 25% given your six opponents' hole cards. Everyone goes all-in before it gets to you.

Do you see why folding is terribly wrong, despite only winning one time in four?

Do you then also see why "someone is probably going to suckout" is a flawed reason for not raising?
I would definitely fold here. 5 players are going busto and you'll probably sail through into the money, whereas by calling you're 75% to go out.

In a sufficiently bankrolled cash game on the other hand....
 
F Paulsson

F Paulsson

euro love
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Total posts
5,799
I didn't think anyone was referring to a tournament?
 
Bombjack

Bombjack

Legend
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Total posts
2,389
And don't you just love it when play money players start calling other players "fishies"? People will call you down with anything when the chips aren't worth anything. Play money cash games are the most pointless thing ever.
 
Lana_Faith

Lana_Faith

Guest
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Total posts
190
And don't you just love it when play money players start calling other players "fishies"? People will call you down with anything when the chips aren't worth anything. Play money cash games are the most pointless thing ever.

This is a discussion I have all the time with my husband. He's of the mind that poker isn't worth playing unless there's money on the line. In fact, sometimes we'll grab some chips and the cards and play some fake-chip heads up practice, but he quickly loses interest and I can easily take all his chips just by waiting and waiting and waiting for the right moment to strike. Sooner or later he starts getting bored and playing stupid hands badly. The marathon method works brilliantly when playing him in this way.

But the minute there's money on the table, even if it's just a couple of bucks, automatically his ability to tough it out for the long haul goes through the roof. He is tenacious and aggressive and he will use his chips to mess with your head. I've never seen him enter a cash-money game without coming away richer than he was when sitting down. Never. I think that's saying something.

See, to me, the game is just as fun and just as engaging when there's no money on the table. I enjoy the sport itself. The money is kind of superfluous. I think that makes me a stronger player than he, because I know for a fact that when he's sitting at a table, the money is foremost in his mind at every moment, whereas I can kind of 'forget' that there's money on the line and simply play my best game regardless.

Admittedly, he's been playing a whole lot longer than I have and so has much more experience, so I would for that reason peg him as a better player than I am at the moment. But, all other things considered, isn't it better to be able to forget about the money (or lack thereof) and simply play POKER for the sheer enjoyment of the game?

Or am I missing the mark here?

There are some of you who I'm sure would disagree... but I keep thinking back to shows like High Stakes Poker where the really great players sit down to a cash game. Haven't you ever noticed that it's always the announcers who get in a big tizzy about the amount of money in any given pot - especially when the pot skyrockets to ridiculous amounts? The players themselves seem rather lackadaisical regarding the actual dollar amounts that they're betting. That seems to me to indicate that an ability to play your best game regardless of the cash dollar amount on the chips is a desirable trait to have - in the upper eschalon of poker players at least.

Anyway, I'd love some input on this. My husband and I obviously have wildly differing views on this subject and I welcome yours as well.
 
Bombjack

Bombjack

Legend
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Total posts
2,389
It might be interesting if everyone were playing properly on the play money tables, but it's like the example above - the guy just calls because if he loses it doesn't matter - he just clicks a button and gets more chips.

I don't know if you've ever played for real money, but it just makes the game so much more fun, because people play better and you can have a sense of achievement, as well as a monetary reward when you win.

The only play money games that are worthwhile are the tournaments, where people are actually trying to win and it means something when you come out ahead. Although it's clear that people make a lot less effort than they do when there's a buy-in and there's a prize difference between winning and losing. I started out on the play money sit and goes, and when I could beat them regularly, moved onto real money.

If you're a decent player it's not as though it's costing you anything to play real money, because you'll end up more or less even, or possibly up on where you started.
 
C

Candy_Licker

Rising Star
Joined
May 13, 2006
Total posts
19
I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you, money is ok but socializing and enjuoying the game means more to me.

See, to me, the game is just as fun and just as engaging when there's no money on the table. I enjoy the sport itself. The money is kind of superfluous. I think that makes me a stronger player than he, because I know for a fact that when he's sitting at a table, the money is foremost in his mind at every moment, whereas I can kind of 'forget' that there's money on the line and simply play my best game regardless.

Admittedly, he's been playing a whole lot longer than I have and so has much more experience, so I would for that reason peg him as a better player than I am at the moment. But, all other things considered, isn't it better to be able to forget about the money (or lack thereof) and simply play POKER for the sheer enjoyment of the game?

Or am I missing the mark here?

Anyway, I'd love some input on this. My husband and I obviously have wildly differing views on this subject and I welcome yours as well.
 
Lana_Faith

Lana_Faith

Guest
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Total posts
190
I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you, money is ok but socializing and enjuoying the game means more to me.

Well at least someone does... from all the criticism I've been getting lately, this forum has been feeling more and more hostile... it's like I've got a target painted on my forehead or something.:icon_shak
 
C

crussader

Guest
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Total posts
16
...He's of the mind that poker isn't worth playing unless there's money on the line.

...See, to me, the game is just as fun and just as engaging when there's no money on the table.


I see both these views as equally valid, and I can be on either side of the issue at any given time depending on my mood. (hope that doesn't make me schizophrenic :eek:)

Of course, on a forum like this you're probably going to run into a majority of people with the former mindset. Just consider the the source perspective and ignore the criticism.
 
Top