Ugh I had trouble with this hand last night playing 2/4 pokerstars.

I am not at home so dont have the exact hand history, but heres how it went down.

I had 66 in the BB, first position limps (FP), mid position limps (MP), button raises. I call, first calls, and mid calls.

4 way action to see flop 26T rainbow. I checked (probably my first mistake was trying to slow play this with 4 people). FP bets, MP raises, button reraises. Ugh. I call.

Turn K (4th to the rainbow). I check again, FP checks, MP bets, Button reraises, I call, FP folds, MP reraises again (sigh), button calls and I call.

River was 7. I check. MP bets, Button Calls, I call.

MP showed TT for trip tens, button mucked (through hand history I saw he had AA) and I mucked my trip sixes.

This entire hand I was nothing but a calling station and just 'seems' like I played it wrong, but after I reviewed the hand I am not sure how else I could have played it. The only hand that could have had me beat at the flop was TT and the turn added KK as a possibility. I didnt think MP had KK with his limp into the pot. Anywho, just looking for some feedback or thoughts.

Thanks

dna

I'd probably bet at every chance I had here. With no flush or straight out there.... I'd pay off the 10's very well every time with this board.

I'd be playing this one very aggressively.

You basically have to pay off the set of Tens here, which you of course did, but I still think you played it wrong, IMO, the main reason being that you should just bet your sets most of the time, especially at low limits where you're guaranteed to get action.

Preflop is just fine.

You need to bet this flop. What hands are going to pay you off here? AA-JJ and maybe a crazy 99. AT, KT or worse might play too. The flop is nice and ragged so you may very likely get a raise from overcards or a big pair from the button preflop raiser. Bet the flop. You'll get plenty of action. Enough, in this case, that it will clue you in that you're beat.

If you bet the flop, the action would have gone: you bet, FP calls, MP raises, Button 3 bets, you cap, FP fdrops, MP calls, Button calls.

Then on the turn, you bet out again. MP raises you and you have to start to worry about catching the ass end of a set over set hand. Button is probably 3 betting here and if he does, MP will almost certainly cap, so you should just go ahead and cap it if the button 3 bets his AA (unless you are very sure one of them has a bigger set than you, which you werent). If you cap you might get to see the showdown for free by getting everybody to check through. Not terribly likely from this MP, it seems, but lots of 2/4 players are stupid. If the button just calls 2 you just call as well.

The river you should be checking and calling regardless of whether you capped or just called on the turn.

Good stuff. I thought I played it wrong and both of your posts make full sense after the fact. Something about the raise, reraise, then 3rd reraise by 3 different people threw me off. My problem was I wasnt even really thinking about what they had so much as the fact they 3 betted which is a huge leak. I let perception overtake reality in this scenario. Next time I'll definitely be jamming it and if i'm beat thats just one of those things.

Hmm Ill disagree with the post flop betting suggested. I have no problem with just calling here on a non-threatening board. I want as many people in the hand come the turn betting as possible - then cap it. With 4 in the pot preflop, I want them all with me for the ride. In this case you happen to have 2 other hands that will support capping the flop, but many times you are going to drive out two other hands and be left with just one that will check call down the turn and river, now that you have announced your strength.

I agree I'm paying off the set of tens by capping both the turn and river.

Dev

Pls try to save results for later. Button is a donkey for sure...just can't get away from pushing AA.

Reads definitely would have helped here. I was a bit surprised to see that MP pushed his top set on the flop.

I would have led the flop, capped it and then check called the hand down...probably, but I don't have any reads.

PokerTracker and my player notes really help me in situations like this.

As I read through your post, I made a few written notes based on what I thought the EP, MP, and button had as hands. (EP=JJ, slowplay AA, AK, KK, QQ, if loose AT, if weak T9) (MP=TT, JJ, AT, AQ, JQ, slowplay QQ, KK, AA, AK) (Button=AA, AK, KK, QQ, JJ, if loose 99, TT). After the flop each player's "box" of hands gets smaller and it looked like the first raiser has TT or a high pair and the button has that "distinct aroma of AA".

I was really happy to see what I was thinking evolve in your post, but this reply is about YOUR hand.

Should you fold a middle set here post flop?

Well, can you put one of your opponents on TT with significant accuracy?

A tough one and I don't think I could release this hand unless the MP had brushed spiderwebs off his chips AND you had a strong sense of TT was within the range of cards he would play that way.

I would lead with betting the flop with a set of sixes and check raise with a set of tens.

Honestly, I would probably go to the river with the set of sixes, slowing down if a set of tens became a probability.

It all comes down to your evaluation of the MP player.

Hope that helps and thanks for posting an interesting hand.

This is exactly why I don't like results posted in an initial post. As for preflop hand ranges, you really need to open them up b/c we have no reads whatsoever on these players.

And there's no way you narrowed MP to TT and the button on AA after the flop betting.

I am not directing this at you personally, just the comments you made. It's frustrating to see all the advice that's based on knowledge of the outcome.

Well, first, you don't have the nuts or the stone cold nuts. You have the best hand here most of the time, but you don't know for sure. So bet to find out what's going on, and to get the pot going should you have the best hand.

If you're afraid of giving away your hand and making people back off or drop out, then the play is to just call the 3 bet on the flop and make a check raise on the turn. But it could be a check 3-bet, which gets you to the same place (a capped turn) as the way I originally suggested when either MP or the Button caps. And then you're for sure going to have to play for at least one bet, probably 2 or more on the river. Granted, we've seen the results, but I know one way I save a fair number of bets is when I figure out I'm beat by set over set, and the way you suggest doesn't have any good way of getting that information.

Nevermind the fact that it is 2/4 and you're going to get action every single time, so there's no need to get tricky.

I stand by my initial play. Bet your sets. So few people do it that you'll fool enough of them every time, adequately charge anybody who's got a draw, and be able to get the information you need about what other hands are out there, including ones that might have you beat like a red-headed stepchild.

Very true. It fooled me, as I didn't put him on top set since he bet the flop.

yah, you really messed this one all up. the reason you play 66 is to hit trips in a full ring game.

the board is relatively safe for slowplaying the flop. but it looks like you are already scared, scared of what? you have the second nuts?! you must have been reading the strategy forum too much lately if you are scared always of hands that beat you.

your line on the turn should be bet/raise. if someone caps then MAYBE you can slow down on the river with a very good read.

checking that turn is awful, especially if you arent even check/raising.

Valid comment.

The MP player has something, and that something could be (a bluff) nothing, TT, the bottom set, two pair, or some kind of cracked semibluff draw. TT is the nuts in the box of hands he could be holding and it is perfectly reasonable to have that in mind. But granted, you are right, he could have a broad variety of hands depending on the type of player he is and that info was not in the post.

The button reraise just looks like AA or maybe KK. If the MP was playing anything, it could also be just a set betting. Reading my post about the "aroma of AA" I was actually thinking about T.J. Cloutier's comment in one of his books that a reraise was (I am paraphrasing here) "99.9% ivory snow AA" but admittedly he was talking no limit also, so it does not necessarily apply.

Equally likely is the MP raising something totally different and the button having the TT.

I agree with you that posting the hand without the result gives everyone a better challenge, with the result posted in the thread later. It really is better.

Rereading my reply in context of the original post looks awful and I am not surprised by your reaction. Nothing I can do about it except make sure I answer a few "non-outcome" hands that you can read and compare it to the result posted later.

I'm not a great poker player by any estimation, but one thing that I believe I understand better than most casual players is that for some hands (actually, a lot of hands), the correct play will lose you money. It's the subject of conversation every time I get sucked out on in my home game. "I got all my money into the middle as a 3:1 favorite, and got a caller; the best poker player in the world couldn't do better". The inevitable response is, "Well, you obviously screwed up this time, because you lost," and everyone who says that is dead wrong (though at that point I usually just smile, nod, and make my dignified exit).

Hitting middle set with 66 on an uncoordinated rainbow board isn't going to happen very often, and if you're scared of the overset every time it *does* happen, you're not going to win much money in the long run. Now, if, by the time you hit the turn & river, you're staring at naked aggression from a passive player, maybe then and only then do you slow down and start calling. But you pay off the TT every time here, one way or another.

As for whether or not to slow-play, to me that depends on the general level of aggression at the table. I'm usually confident enough in a middle set / uncoordinated board to toss a check into a loose/aggressive field, and just call if there's enough action - then will hit it hard on the turn and river against the fish that overplay hands like AT, KT, mid-high pockets, and junk pairs in this situation. On a tighter, more passive table, I bet out. I don't think you can humanly put someone on TT specifically at this sort of table.

Not much strategy really, here, but an important lesson as to why players should never play beyond their means, or sit down with all of their money at one table (ala Matt Damon in the opening scene in "Rounders"). Because plays like this *will* happen, and when they do, if you play it correctly, you will lose your ass. Hands like this are why long-term poker is all about swings, and point to why you should always keep enough in your roll to withstand them.

sorry for the tone of the reaction. i was a bit on edge about another thread i was involved with where a donkey was posting about bankrolls.

i was all set to get the thrashing i deserved.