What would you all do in this spot? Pot limit hold 'em.

Texas Hold'em $0.25-$0.25 PL (real money)

Seat 1: BB ($28.65 in chips)
Seat 2: UTG ($15.25 in chips)
Seat 3: UTG+1 ($13.30 in chips)
Seat 4: HERO ($42.60 in chips)
Seat 5: MP1 ($31.05 in chips)
Seat 6: MP2 ($7.80 in chips)
Seat 7: LP ($11.35 in chips)
Seat 8: CO ($7.50 in chips)
Seat 9: Button ($4.35 in chips)
Seat 10: SB ($40.90 in chips)

ANTES/BLINDS
SB posts blind ($0.25), BB posts blind ($0.25).

HERO is dealt [ 2C, 2H ]

PRE-FLOP
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls $0.25, HERO calls $0.25, MP1 bets $1, 3 folds, Button calls $1, SB calls $0.75, BB folds, UTG+1 calls $0.75, HERO calls $0.75.

Maybe too loose, but a set on the flop and I could get paid good and the pot is pretty big.

FLOP [board cards 7D,2D,10H ] (Pot: $5)

Yay, there's my 2.

SB checks, UTG+1 checks, HERO checks,

I usually don't slowplay, but it happens once in a while and from what I've seen so far I'm pretty sure that MP1 will bet out so I plan check-raise.

MP1 bets $5.25,

Yep, according to plan. Then hell breaks loose...

Button folds, SB bets $21, UTG+1 calls $12.30 and is all-in, HERO ???

What do I do now? SB and I both have a stack of about $40, MP1 has about $30. The pot is $43.55 at this point if I got the math right.

P.S. I liked the idea someone said of putting the type of game in the topic, so I did that.[color=brown][/color]

Easiest push ever.

Overests happen, if it's that, oh well.

Most of the time it's like 89d and ATd or a grossly overplayed big pair.

All of which you're crushing.

yeah, i just see too many people with flush draws, overpairs and people that think top pair weak kicker is good

and if they have an overset....you still have an out!

It's an easy push here. You hit your set, you have to go with it. There are 2 hands that have you beat right now, and even against top 2 and a draw, you should be about 50% to win, definitely getting the pot odds to call.

Yeah ive found at these lower PL and NL levels will push all in with 2 pair or tp+hk without any hesistation, I'd definently push.

Every response is right, you just have to go all in and hope that there isn't a higher set out there, in those cases, you have to pay off the higher set. People could be going all in with two pair, a flush draw, overpairs, tptk. Push all in and take down the big pot :-) ...


By the way, thank you for putting the game in the title of the post. I will take this opportunity to take credit for that :-) , now lets all do that and I can not have to worry about opening a limit post (blah)... Just to clarify as I always do, I respect limit, its a truly tough game, but I prefer nl.

You say that so much that it's lost all meaning. It is true this time though.

That's what I did except for the take-down-the-big-pot part as I was totally dominated by SB's pocket 7s and finally losing the pot to MP1 who called with the nut flush draw and hit it on the river...

Btw, the final pot was $129.10, which is the largest I've seen so far.

I wanted to post this because I started questioning myself afterwards. I was afraid SB had a set, but I guess that that would be too narrow a range of hands to put him on.



No problem. Didn't remember who it was that posted it originally, but it's a good idea.

bet the flop, maybe about $4 and then if it's raised and reraised and it's back to you I could fold

Most of the time I do bet the flop here, but I like to change how I play now and then even though it's not really necessary at this level as you get paid off most of the time anyway.

You are giving up way too much money by folding a set in this spot, even if this scenario happens, youbetting and g etting raised and reraised. There are just t oo many other likely holdings of your opponents to not call or move in here.


Edit: Look at the limit he's playing, that says enough. You have to go with the set.

I'd lose my stack just like you did.

Nothing wrong with your play.

This is a horrible flop check. Absolutely horrible.

Bet the pot.

Also nothing is wrong with allinbluff's advice here.
I would definitely consider a fold when it is two raises to me with bottom set in such a multiway pot.

I think calling is correct, but a fold should be a consideration.
Reads would help tons. Do you have stats on these players?

I disagree. The flop check isn't that horrible of a play at all considering the texture of the flop. He is in perfect position to get a pot built up and make a huge bet when the action gets around to him. The preflop raiser (MP1) is directly on his left and he was right in assuming that he would make a continuation bet on the flop. This makes it that every other player after the MP1 must act on his bet and the action will end on the Hero, who will be able to put in a bigger bet due to a bigger pot.

When you are in favorable position to the preflop raiser, a check raise is perfectly acceptable.

Again, there is no reason to fold a set, despite two raises in front of you. The sb could have easily flopped top two pair, and the utg could have a big flush draw with overcards or even slow playing an overpair, or at these limits, just tptk.

The times you go in with a set in a action heavy pot where you do run into a higher set, are negated by the times that you run into novices overplaying their hands. Like I said before, look at the limits, you are not going to fold a set especially on a flop of this texture.

Do you understand the conditions that must be met for slowplaying?
I will take a guess and say no, but amuse me.

I already outlined why the check raise was acceptable in my response that you quoted. It is really simple to see why it will work fine in this situation. Granted there is a two flush on the flop, but he is playing pot limit, so that means he can only bet what is in the pot. (i will clarify everything for you)

He specifically stated he had a read on the MP1 and it is safe to assume the preflop raiser will fire out a continuation bet on the flop. What is the best way to build a big pot and protect your hand in this situation? Checking to the preflop raiser (right on your left, first to act after you), he fires his continuation bet, the other players either call, fold or raise, the action gets back around to you, more money in the pot, you raise the size of the pot. And that happens to be how it played out in this example.

This is exactly my thinking.

I said in another post that I normally bet this flop, but I want to mix up my play a bit and I don't think this is a bad play.



Check-raising is not the same as slowplaying so the conditions don't apply. It would be a mistake on my part if he checks, but it's not because of the slowplaying conditions.

Edit: I looked at my original post and the wording of my thoughts on the flop was unfortunate. I shouldn't have mentioned slowplay.

Also, I should have said in the OP that UTG+1 is a total fish, he could have anything.

A check-raise is not correct here either.

Betting this flop is standard.

Care to elaborate?

You have this habit of forwarding your terrible opinions on the game of poker like they are accepted fact.

There's nothing wrong with checking to an aggressive player here, and trying to win a big pot.

Ice

I agree, well put.

absolute, there's nothing wrong with check-raising here. in fact, check-raising is what i consider standard here, not betting out. and as others have pointed out, please don't mix up slowplaying and check-raising... you sound like a guy who's been listening to norman chad too much.

aseem

Are you fucking serious?
Norman Chad? If you have read half of my posts in Strategy, you would not make this comment. Actually, you have no basis at all for doing so.

But if you want to get cute, cute it is.

Betting the pot here against an aggressive player is the correct play. You want to get all your chips on on this flop.

Let me ask those of you arguing for a check/raise.
Do you want this pot to be multi way on the turn or not?

Listen, here is why you bet this flop.

The worst thing in the world that can happen in this spot is for it to get checked around behind you. Granted, this happens seldomly, it does happen, especially on this board.

You WILL get calls if you bet this flop.
Actually, you will get called a greater % of the time that it will not get checked behind you.


Betting this flop is exactly what you want to do. An overpair will raise you, and you can push. A check raise isolates hands that you WANT calling your flop bet.

But I am perfectly aware how often FCP posters like to get 'cute' with their no-limit hands.

Post this at 2+2 and I guarantee the consensus will be to bet this flop.


But you are all convinced you are right here already. So what does my reply mean anyway.

And you have a habit of giving some of the worst LHE advice this forum has ever seen.

Therefore, I award nothing you say any creedence whatsoever.

Good band, absolute.

same to you

Another Zevon fan? Wow, this is two in one forum. I'm amazed.

By the way, I'd like to point out, I agree a flop bet is pretty standard here, there is no reason too get cute.

I do agree in the most part you want to avoid risky fancy plays, but this play doesn't fit in the getting too cute category. I've already pointed out all the reasons I am going for a check raise...

So just for the hell of it, I opened an account on two plus two and posted this hand with the question, check raise or bet out? Time will tell what their consensus is....

cool, i will be interested to see.
did you post it in the PL section?

You know what the best way to make a logical point is?

Baseless ad hominem attacks that double as non sequiturs!

In response: You're a worthless piece of shit who thinks his Funeral avatar makes him hip. See? See how that doesn't have anything to do with what you said? And that it's completely useless?

In response to your advice: I have no problem betting this flop. Depending on the table I'm playing at, I'd probably bet this flop close to half the time it's checked to me. But with an opponent who has shown a propensity to make pot-sized raises in position when weakness has been shown by the field, a check-raise is a good idea. If nobody else has a hand, you're going to win a little bit more by check-raising (and picking of a possible late position bluff). If somebody ELSE has a check-raise (or check-call) worthy hand, we're going to get a LOT more money in on the flop.

Once again, I have no problem with fast playing my strong hands. I prefer to at action tables. But in a situation in which you're guaranteed to get an extra bet in if you check to an aggressive player behind you, check-raising seems like a very logical choice.

Cheers friend!

Ice

PS- What part of my LHE game do you find so detestable that it makes any and all advice I offer counterfeit?

I posted it in the pl/nl small stakes section titled "check raise or bet out?"

Congratulations, you took Logic 101.
Now use it correctly.

Your "example" of an ad hominem fallacy was correct. Congratulations again.

But I never once displayed such fallacy.
A fallacy of logic is that which deviates the subject from using reason or logic.

What I said was that judging from your past responses, I no longer give credit to most of your advice.

This is in f act, logical and reasonable.

Care to continue? Or do you want to tell me what you learned in the second week of your logic class?

It appears you have a pretty good grasp on "ad hominem" (range of possibilities here... maybe you watch a lot of FOX News?), but since you didn't mention the other two, I figure it's because you couldn't find a dictionary.

Baseless (adj.)- Having no basis or foundation in fact; unfounded.

non sequitur (n.)- An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.

OFTEN you resort to calling people names or being a petty prick in your posts (while dispensing bad advice). In this case, you didn't. Well, you were still a prick, but I didn't see any direct name-calling directed at me. You did, however, make a baseless (see above) claim about my terrible LHE advice which happened to be a complete non sequitur (see above).

Even if I WERE prone to repeatedly giving terrible LHE advice, I'm not exactly sure how that would be mega-relevant. First off, this is a completely different game. Secondly, you know, I'm right. Regardless of whether I stumbled onto a correct answer like a desperate hobo onto your willing mother, or drew upon my experienec as a 13-time WSOP bracelet winner, I AM STILL RIGHT.

Care to respond to the content of my post? Or do you still wanna do the whole Good Will Hunting thing?

Ice

I am just glad you are here to define the big words you use for all of us.

And I seriously doubt that you believe I watch a lot of FOX News.

Also, didn't this begin with your "baseless" claim that I have consistently horrible opinions on the game of poker?

That's the pot calling the kettle, "friend".

But I guess you are aware of that, you took logic and all. You can even spell sequitur!

Sadly, you're correct. Few alternative hipsters are arch-conservative, but there's usually a pretty high correlation between people with poor argumentative skills and FOX-News watching conservatives. I was mostly hoping.

Also, I take it this is a "no" in regards to your having any intentions to replying to the content-side of my posts.

Cheers pal,

Ice

Ok, getting back on topic. The heated section of this thread was whether or not to check raise or to bet right out on the flop. As I mentioned, I posted this in 2 plus 2, but only got two responses: (Absolute was right on their opinion)







And..






Now the reason I opted to argue for the check raise is because you can only bet the pot, but if you have a pretty good sense that the preflop bettor will fire a continuation bet, he is right on your left and everyone else will get trapped in between, then you can raise the pot with a lot more in it. I don't have any idea why they didn't take this into consideration, perhaps because there is the possibility it gets checked around on a v ery coordinated and scary flop. I still think you'll get more action with the check raise. :-(

As a red-state conservative (and someone who considers himself reasonably intelligent)...

I always think it's really funny that the obviously intelligent non-conservative members of the forum use "Fox news" as the ultimate "you're dumb" insult.

It's like when somebody calls you a noob on X-Box live.

We've all heard the four letter words in our day... but... "YOU watch FOX NEWS!"


And we can all agree betting the flop is textbook +EV for low stakes online, and a check-raise with aggressive players in a multiway raised pot isn't disgustingly bad.

And Jesus loves you all.

All done!

[major sw on the Jesus loves you part... pleeeeeease don't flame me... I'm not even that Catholic]

I can't help it. I have conservative friends, and I can even stomach some basic conservative policy. But FOX news is a disease, and anyone who swallows the bullshit they spew is ignorant.

No offense (well, just a little...) intended to the conservative that dwells within you, but please don't stick up for FOX news and tell me Sean Hannity is not devil-incarnate

Ice

I listen to Boortz and Hannity for entertainment. It's funny because Boortz is an entertainer, and Hannity is scary because he actually believes it all.

that would involve me having to read what you say
ill get around to it eventually

i get the feeling that because Paul Phillips put you in his blog you have been led to believe that you are in some way an intellectual powerhouse.

each argument you have made against me has been one you were guilty of yourself, and that is weak.

i even got you to say that you wished that i would die.
thats weak too.

get out of the kiddie pool.
stop acting like a sixth grader or JFarrell with your phony death wishes.

Oh, and of course 2+2 sided with bet rather than check/raise.
its not even a marginal favorite like one of the posters suggested.

*gasps in shock* Akishore was wrong!

it happens
it will happen again

a lot of you believe whatever people tell you

look this hand over and think for yourself.
you should be betting this flop more than 50% of the time.

so last nite, and early into the morning was probably my most craziest game of poker i've ever seen.

at one point, my $100 max buy in NLHE cash game had an avg pot size of $350. This continued for about 20-30 minutes.

We finally settled at $70 avg/pot.

crazy.

/random.

- Jordan

To Absolute:

I'm going to give you a suggestion. Please, don't take this as a flame.
Why don't you tone it down some? In at least the 3 first of your posts in this thread you state your oppinion very strongly without backing it up with any arguments or arguments that don't apply. I even had to explicitly ask before you gave away your reasoning.

I can take critiscism if it's well argumented but just throwing out things like they are facts when other people are disagreeing won't really win any arguments.

You started by saying this:



And ended up by saying this (After having flamed away in between):



Also consider that before any of your posts I had already said this:



Then you really jumped on the parts of the 2+2 posts that agreed with betting out, even though they both said that the check-raise was fine.

To summarize, it would save a lot of flames if you would give some arguments right away instead of just saying it's "a horrible flop check. Absolutely horrible." Especially since it seems like your oppinion doesn't seem to lie very far from mine (Please correct me if I'm wrong): I would bet most of the time but did a check-raise here to mix it up.

I think this really is a problem with this forum. Personally I really try to stay humble and civil, not because I can't take the truth or honesty (I can and I wouldn't want it any other way), but because any thread so quickly deteriorates when someone (unnecessarily) feels the need to belittle someone else.

End of rant.

I completely agree with Snowman. I still think there are great conditions in this situation for a good check raise and they actually played out in this example. Another comment from absolute, where he said FCP'rs like to get cute with their check raise, that's a horrible generalization. You can clearly see from my responses why I argue a check raise here, but ofcourse any good poker player will agree to stay away from too many fancy plays and betting out is generally correct.

ditto

I dont understand how check raising the flop with the third nuts is getting cute. The OP give good reason for the check he knew it was gonna get bet at and with such a strong hand as a set you should definately be trying to get all your money in on the flop so people can't outdraw you.

I'm tryin to work and all i can think about is this hand! Betting out was my initial instinct when i read the hand because of the flush draw and the fact that its a multi way pot BUT if the OP was pretty sure that the preflop raiser would make the continuation bet then i think a check raise is correct especially at this limit. Be very interested to see how the hand panned out.