Did I Play This Alright?

[Napa_Don 688]

PokerStars Game #6374886652: Hold'em No Limit ($5/$10) - 2006/09/22 - 02:11:47 (ET)Table 'Attica II' 6-max Seat #4 is the buttonSeat 1: boggsaramus ($2399 in chips)Seat 4: stereotype6 ($1396 in chips)Seat 5: The_Napa_Don ($1321 in chips)Seat 6: henrywise ($899 in chips)The_Napa_Don: posts small blind $5henrywise: posts big blind $10*** HOLE CARDS ***Dealt to The_Napa_Don [7d 2h]boggsaramus: foldsstereotype6: calls $10The_Napa_Don: calls $5henrywise: checks*** FLOP *** [5c 8h 2c]The_Napa_Don: checkshenrywise: checksstereotype6: checks*** TURN *** [5c 8h 2c] [3h]The_Napa_Don: checkshenrywise: checksstereotype6: bets $20The_Napa_Don: calls $20henrywise: calls $20*** RIVER *** [5c 8h 2c 3h] [Td]The_Napa_Don: checkshenrywise: checksstereotype6: bets $60The_Napa_Don: calls $60henrywise: folds*** SHOW DOWN ***stereotype6: shows [Jh Qh] (high card Queen)The_Napa_Don: shows [7d 2h] (a pair of Deuces)The_Napa_Don collected $210 from pot*** SUMMARY ***Total pot $210 | Rake $3Board [5c 8h 2c 3h Td]Seat 1: boggsaramus folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 4: stereotype6 (button) showed [Jh Qh] and lost with high card QueenSeat 5: The_Napa_Don (small blind) showed [7d 2h] and won ($210) with a pair of DeucesSeat 6: henrywise (big blind) folded on the River

[cwik 0]

PokerStars Game #6374886652: Hold'em No Limit ($5/$10) - 2006/09/22 - 02:11:47 (ET)Table 'Attica II' 6-max Seat #4 is the buttonSeat 1: boggsaramus ($2399 in chips)Seat 4: stereotype6 ($1396 in chips)Seat 5: The_Napa_Don ($1321 in chips)Seat 6: henrywise ($899 in chips)The_Napa_Don: posts small blind $5henrywise: posts big blind $10*** HOLE CARDS ***Dealt to The_Napa_Don [7d 2h]boggsaramus: foldsstereotype6: calls $10The_Napa_Don: calls $5henrywise: checks*** FLOP *** [5c 8h 2c]The_Napa_Don: checkshenrywise: checksstereotype6: checks*** TURN *** [5c 8h 2c] [3h]The_Napa_Don: checkshenrywise: checksstereotype6: bets $20The_Napa_Don: calls $20henrywise: calls $20*** RIVER *** [5c 8h 2c 3h] [Td]The_Napa_Don: checkshenrywise: checksstereotype6: bets $60The_Napa_Don: calls $60henrywise: folds*** SHOW DOWN ***stereotype6: shows [Jh Qh] (high card Queen)The_Napa_Don: shows [7d 2h] (a pair of Deuces)The_Napa_Don collected $210 from pot*** SUMMARY ***Total pot $210 | Rake $3Board [5c 8h 2c 3h Td]Seat 1: boggsaramus folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 4: stereotype6 (button) showed [Jh Qh] and lost with high card QueenSeat 5: The_Napa_Don (small blind) showed [7d 2h] and won ($210) with a pair of DeucesSeat 6: henrywise (big blind) folded on the River

I don't like calling in the SB with 2 7 0ff. I don't like calling on the turn, and I really don't like calling the river. There isn't even enough money in the pot to risk repoping him on the turn to take it down, with someone still to act behind you. Preflop was unraised so they can have anything. Just get away from the hand. by winning this hand, it's creating -EV for your future play if you conitue to call down with bottom pair.Is this a joke? or are you just braging you won a showdown with 2's?

[Scott3705 0]

Raise preflop?If not, i usually 1/2 pot this flop and hope to be done with it.If not, i usually call the turn, and then I usually fold the river.

[CoranMoran 0]

This hand appears to have been played badly.Fold preflop.Playing 72 out of position is never a good play.Unless you are up against an over-aggressive bluffing fool, weakly check-calling down the whole way with bottom pair is -EV.--cm

[semaj550 0]

No.I sincerely hope this was a joke.

[MisterB 2]

Im results based so I would say great call down with bottom pair. You do what you gotta do to make $ 72 or not

[Napa_Don 688]

This hand appears to have been played badly.Fold preflop.Playing 72 out of position is never a good play.Unless you are up against an over-aggressive bluffing fool, weakly check-calling down the whole way with bottom pair is -EV.--cm

No.I sincerely hope this was a joke.

Im results based so I would say great call down with bottom pair. You do what you gotta do to make $ 72 or not

At least somebody agrees with me that it was a good play. This guy had been bluffing all night and I knew if I could pair up with any hand I'd get paid off. Plus I just got this feeling that I knew my pair of 2's were good

[MisterB 2]

At least somebody agrees with me that it was a good play. This guy had been bluffing all night and I knew if I could pair up with any hand I'd get paid off. Plus I just got this feeling that I knew my pair of 2's were good

always go with your reads. They usually work out for you

[semaj550 0]

At least somebody agrees with me that it was a good play. This guy had been bluffing all night and I knew if I could pair up with any hand I'd get paid off. Plus I just got this feeling that I knew my pair of 2's were good

If that was your read you played it even worse.

[cwik 0]

At least somebody agrees with me that it was a good play. This guy had been bluffing all night and I knew if I could pair up with any hand I'd get paid off. Plus I just got this feeling that I knew my pair of 2's were good

Even if you thought your oppenents were playing blind. What do you think your odds are that a pair of 2's 7 kicker, in a 3 way pot is the best hand? Less then 33%.And if you KNEW your pair was good, why didn't you reraise him?

[Napa_Don 688]

Even if you thought your oppenents were playing blind. What do you think your odds are that a pair of 2's 7 kicker, in a 3 way pot is the best hand? Less then 33%.And if you KNEW your pair was good, why didn't you reraise him?

I knew it was good, but if I re-raised him I KNEW he'd fold his nothing. And if by calling him with that all the way he knows that I'm not messing around and that's he's not going to be pushing me around. It was purely a pyschological play. If you guys can't realize this maybe you should play me.

[Scott3705 0]

I knew it was good, but if I re-raised him I KNEW he'd fold his nothing. And if by calling him with that all the way he knows that I'm not messing around and that's he's not going to be pushing me around. It was purely a pyschological play. If you guys can't realize this maybe you should play me.

Please not another Corp3 thread. I'm pretty sure this thread was just meant to get a rise. The play doesn't necessarily have to be bad, but there's no way you can give no reads and ask an online forum if it's a good play cause there's no way to assess villian's tendencies to bluff.Edit;Totally agree w/ you about not raising though.

[cwik 0]

I knew it was good, but if I re-raised him I KNEW he'd fold his nothing. And if by calling him with that all the way he knows that I'm not messing around and that's he's not going to be pushing me around. It was purely a pyschological play. If you guys can't realize this maybe you should play me.

'Play shrieff all you want, everyone loves a calling station.

[mrdannyg 274]

Even if you thought your oppenents were playing blind. What do you think your odds are that a pair of 2's 7 kicker, in a 3 way pot is the best hand? Less then 33%.And if you KNEW your pair was good, why didn't you reraise him?

after the flop is checked around, his turn call usually shuts out the third player.so against a bluffing maniac, a pair is never good?i don't love the reverse implied odds of limping any two from the SB, but if your postflop skill is good enough to know when bottom pair is good, i think it cancels it out.

[Jordan 1]

Muck that PF, or raise. Completing, as minor a mistake it seems, is just giving away money when you do so with 72o.You induced a bluff, so whatever. Not betting the flop is ok, I'd lead the turn though...and if called, prob check/call a river bet like you did cause i'd put him on hearts or something.Most guys bet flops with top pair (so i'd discount that on the flop) and you'll pick off bluffs here every once in a while, like you did here.but i wouldn't make it too much of a habit.- Jordan

[No_Neck 0]

as long as you are doing it for metagame reasons I don't see a problem but he could easily have a small pocket pair here.