$0.10 NL on stars. Full Ring.

I have 10 $ an am the big blind. I check a couple of limpers with 5 5 .

Flop ($0.50) 8 9 K

SB checks, Hero checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks, Button checks

Turn ($0.50) 2

SB checks, Hero checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks, Button checks

River 5

SB checks, Hero bets $0.50, MP1 fold, MP2 raises $11.00, Button fold, SB folds, Hero "Wtf?". sighs and calls

MP2 is running 16/6/2 over 300 hands. I have so far never seen him do anything stupid and have no notes on him.

I can not see him getting out of line here with a slowplayed AK or AA. And with pocket 8s or 9s I think he would have bet on the turn to get a few chips from JT for drawing. If he has pocket 2s he's probably raising not shoving.

The only hand that would fit here is 76.

Do you snap call here?


On the side... my stats are levelling around 18/7/4 currently. Sorry that the VPIP is going up again...
I have dumped a lot of money with continuation bets in Heads up pots with AQ and AJ sofar against stations willing to call me down with K5 on KT2 flops :-I
I found it a profitable adjustment to limp along more often and see if I hit the flop hard before taking their money.

Id fold it. I dont think we are good enough here like 48% or whatever of the time against a 16/6/2.

I fail to see what the difference is, in villains eyes, between 67 and 22, and why he'd only raise with 22, but shove 76.

However, if these two hands are the only hands in his range, folding would actually be correct, since the card combos heavily favour 76, and we're not ahead that 48% or whatever.

His range is probably bigger, in reality, but maybe not much. I dunno, people do dumb things.

You should still be raising for value with your strong hands. Just because a few of your c-bets got picked off doesn't mean it's not profitable to raise and c-bet to take the pot down. Remember, they'll only catch a strong piece (pair or strong draw) 1/3rd of the time on the flop.

Also, with your stronger hands, you'll want to build the pot preflop, not only for immediate value, but to make it easier to get more money in postflop when you do flop a very strong hand, since you'll be able to get a call with a bigger bet when the pot is larger, right?

You raise preflop because you have position and a hand with an equity edge against a limper's range. You will (theoretically) get to the flop with a stronger distribution and better position, and you will bet your hands better than them. You also make it so when you hit the pot is bigger and you can win more money.

To be blunt, you need to fix your postflop problems head on and not just avoid them by making mistakes preflop.

Also, you don't have to c/bet. If you raise with AJ and the flop comes 78Q against a guy that never folds, don't c/bet. Or, if he is the sort to call the flop with anything and then fold the turn, fire two barrels.


EDIT: Ok, or you could just read Zach's post.

specifically with regard to the issue - do we ever fold a set?

In most examples no - but the typical example comes with us making a set on the flop with a board that is flushed or straighted.

We have a good hand but suspect that we may be behind. We don't fold because
1. We may be ahead of 2 pair, flush draw etc and
2. If we are behind we have some chance (around 30% - I think) of improving to a full-house.

This case is quite different
1. All cards are out so you have no chance for improvement.
2. There is a straight out there - he could have this (maybe/maybe not)
3. The big all-in screams anti-bluff (i.e. nut hand trying to look like a bluff) - I see this a lot at these stakes.

This I fold.

there is $.50 in the pot and we put in another $.50 then get raised all in I agree with the overbet the nutz to make it look like a bluff line and fold. Even if it is a bluff we are out $.60?

Not relevant.

At all.

Accoding to Sklanskys Books (ok... I read too much of those) it's the recommended play to shove the river with the nuts (to maximise EV)

The reasoning goes like this -> "every player with 2nd nuts has a hard time folding"

I used to play by this rule for a while last year but I find it is very seldom working now on the tables (for me... I called here.... I'm a station)

If you think someone has a worse hand that they won't fold then ya, it's a great play.

pot odds aren't relevant at all???????????

How much you have invested or how much you stand to lose is irrelevant. That's not the same as pot odds.

Speaking in general about c-betting loose opponents I've found the delayed c-bet to be useful. That is I raise in position and a loose/passive player calls. I miss the flop and check behind and bet the turn. Seems counter intuitive but the turn bet seems to get more folds than the flop c-bet.

Pot odds are very relevant. How much we have lost so far isn't.

Whatever we have put into the pot is no longer ours, and you shouldn't think of it as yours. There is only your stack, his stack, and the pot in the middle.

It's almost impossible to make objective decisions if you're thinking about what you have invested. It's why most players play too weakly (first thing they think is how much they have 'lost' already), and it's also why people think they are "pot committed" with weak hands. It might seem trivial, but it isn't.

how much you have invested would affect your pot odds would it not??? I was only saying if you fold and you are wrong you are out $.60 instead of calling and wrong out your stack (small mistake/bigger mistake)



point taken.... as an overall gambler never worry about "how much I've lost already", but I do admit thinking about how much I have invested in the pot when making decisions in what I consider marginal situations which may be a leak I need to work on.
guilty of the "pot committed" with weak hands point as well, but not sure this is always wrong is it? I mean if you think you have a small chance you could win the hand isn't that where comparing pot odds to that % comes in play in the thought process?

So if I count correctly 4 folders? 0 callers?

Oh and with regard to preflop.

Sorry phrased it badly. Of course I still open/raise with AQ and also raise limpers.

I just allow myself to every now an then limp in or limp along sometimes with JTs or QJ in mid/late position when the table is too anxious to call raises preflop.
Great mistake?

Suppose you have a starting stack of $100, and on the turn the pot is $40. You have $80 behind and a middle strength hand. If you bet $30 and your opponent raises allin, the fact that you have 'half your stack' in the middle is irrelevant. All it does is add sentiment. You have to look at it objectively. The pot is now $150, and you have a $50 stack. Do you win this pot more than 1/4 of the time? It's a straight decision. Simple.

If you're comparing to your starting stack you will be distracted by thinking "I don't want to lose a full buyin with this hand, I should fold", or by thinking "I've already invested half my stack, I can't fold now".

As long as you never open limp and you make sure to raise limpers with a fairly wide range, it's ok to limp behind with small pairs or suited connectors.

If there's only one limper I'll still usually raise though.

What page of what book is this on? It seems like DS would attach a bunch of conditions on to something like this.

I do this too when there are multiple limpers. Just be sure to play very carefully after the flop and don't go crazy with top pair type hands.

I read it in: No Limit Holdem Theory and Practice.
I think it even had a bold printed headline "Playing the Nuts on the river". (I have the book at home and will edit the exact page here later on).

The reasoning goes like this (numbers my vary)

You rather have 10% of times a caller for 1,000$ (EV=+100$)
than 90% of times a caller for 100$ (EV=+90$)

It's marginal but that's about it. Probably says something too like Simo said "You think your opponent can't fold"

"check" :-)

understood thanks Simo

Does anyone else thinks Skalnsky's NL hold em and Theory of Poker books are really over rated/outdated?

Anyway, i'd probably take the chance to fold here and congradulate myself on the awesome lay down of a set.

Folders 5 : Callers 0

(excluding me)

Sklanskys was the best I read so far.
Perhaps he is too nitty?

Any other sources you recommend reading?

I just don't think people make this bet as a bluff or value bet with a worse hand (2 pair or a set of 2s) often enough to ever show a profit calling here.

I think Theory of Poker is very relevant. It helps explain pot odds, and implied odds, and is very good for people with the "I watch WSOP on ESPN!" understanding of the game.

yeah I think you have to fold, i personally prefer timing out in this hand

I suppose, i think my judgement may be affected cause i basically knew everything he wrote before i read the book.

Let me fix this for you, because I think you recorded the numbers incorrectly.

People who think folding is correct while reading the hand on a forum - 5
People who think calling is correct while reading the hand on a forum - 0
People who would actually fold here - 0

Oddly enough, I try to post as I would play the hand itself... I don't take incredible amounts of time looking at the hands...

If you see me pull up ranges and crap though, that means it's borderline (which usually means my chips are going in), but I actually feel it's close enough to be worth analyzing.

But I see what you're getting at.

Meh, I would fold here in real time like 2/5 times. Mostly, I just act pretty fast and don't always think things through.

Literature Ressource:

It's on page 21 of No Limit Holdem Theory and Practice.

There's a nother section called "Playing the nuts on the river - more examples" too later on in the book


I called. Obv 76


What villain did here was pretty much in line with the books.

He has the nuts I bet into him. How much should he raise? he'll get paid with a 1$ raise most of the time still he looses value against a multitabling station not seeing a possible straight in the long run.

I read Theory of Poker too. A lot of valuable input in there, although it mainly applies to limit strucutre it still sharpens thinking processes anyway.
Can anyone recommend doyle's books?

Maybe I should just read the No Limit Holdem Theory and Practice book again....
When looking for the section on river play with the nuts I started at the back of the book and realized I suddenly understood a lot more of the concepts and ideas which I thought I understood already when I read them the first time :

P.S. awesome... just found the additional smilies... they are very well hidden with the word "next"

The concept here "better to have 1000 called 10% than 100 called 90%" is not outdated. It's simple mathematical fact. It's up to you to adjust the $ amounts and percentages to fit your game and find the sweet spot. It's also counter-intuitive - everyone is disappointed when they have the nuts and don't get paid off which tends to people betting far less than optimal when they have the nuts.