Had this hand come up earlier tonight, and id like to see how you guys think this should be played. I hadnt been at the table long, so i dont have any reads here.



Preflop: Hero is BB with :diamonds6: :clubs6: .
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, 3 folds, CO calls, Button calls, SB completes, Hero checks

Flop: (7SB) :spades10: :spades2: :spades6: (7 players)

SB bets, Hero....?

Don't play much limit, but call and push a safe turn seems like a good move.

i actually just played a hand like this where i flopped a set against a suited board...i played it aggressive and took it down..i dont think you can be afraid of a board like that

in ur situatino...there always has to be a raise on the flop...you need to define ur hand and to see the strength of his...if he 3 bets you can check/ call the turn and river and hope to fill up

First, automatic raise preflop. With You on the BB and 7 to the pot in total, You're getting 13-1 on the raise and You'll flop a set 1 in 8 times.

I'd raise the flop too.

You could have just said that and we'd know You weren't much into limit. Heh.

Push.

Raising the flop is automatic, your going to get a lot of calls from people drawing to anything from Js-As 1 card flushes, if another spade comes off then i'd slow down and just check call it down hoping to fill up on the riv.

we at FCP should nickname some move in limit the "push" so that when we post other places people think were NL nubs talkin about "pushing" in limit when in fact its a nickname for a limit move... but really theyre the nubs :0 im tired

Auto raise there. You may already be beat by someone who flopped a flush, but you have outs if that is the case. If someone else has a higher set than you, so be it. You don't want someone to get a fourth flush card cheaply, so make them pay. 8)

Agreed

I don't agree that this is an automatic raise pre-flop, depending on many other factors which we are currently not privy too (ie. how has the table been playing for the past X minutes, what do our opponents think of us lately (have we been raising a bunch of pots pre-flop, etc).

Also, what are you going to do if it is re-raised behind us? Depending on where it is re-raised behind us, what are you going to do then? What about if it ends up being capped behind us?

I agree that there are certain hands that definately could be raised pre-flop from that position, and this MAY be one of them, but do not say that it is an automatic raise.... 8)

I would raise the flop, and if he 3 bets I would cap it. If he checks the turn I bet. If he he bets the turn, I raise and call a 3 bet. This is assuming a brick falls on the turn. More often than not villian will have top pair and/or an ace/king high flush draw.

Hahaha

I have to go against the grain here. I am thinking micro limit, or just a flop happy table.

If you raise preflop, I don't see anyone folding anyway, so no raise preflop is ok. I don't agree with the equity raise preflop with small PP.

I check/call the flop, someone will bet with A or K spade, or the made flush. I call and see the turn, no fill, no bet. I call the turn, and call the river if my hand doesn't improve. I'm thinking that i am beat on the flop here.

Someone played Q9s, right?

No, its an automatic raise. Since You brought up the Sklanskinator last time, I'm sure here he would be raising this. 13-1 on the raise, it's automatic.

If it happens to get re-raised, call it. The slimmest chance that it gets re-raised right after You and the whole table decides to fold, You're getting at the least (in that extreme case) 5:1 on Your 2 more bets.

Skalanskinator advocates getting involved with a mid PP as low as 5:1 (because of implied odds)... and You were raising in the 1st place getting 13:1.

Care to elaborate on which book he advocates doing this? I don't believe it is in HFAP (but again will have to check when I get home), and if it is, I highly doubt it says to do this 100% of the time (ie. automatic raise). I am still trying to absorb (through osmosis) his thoughts, so maybe I am missing this part.

Also, why is it a slim chance that it will be re-raised after us? We know nothing about how the table has been playing. We know nothing about what our perceived table image currently is. I know many a small stakes player who would raise here when next to act, making it more difficult for people to call after limping, as well as have seen many people re-raise that raise, with a wide variety of holdings, many of which have us beat right now.

I would rather raise here with jack ten suited than with pocket 6's. 8)

raise until he shows a lot of strength, he's probably drawing and even if he does have the flush u have redraws.

First of all, it's a slim chance that the person to act right after You will re-raise, and it's a slimmer chance that all 5 after the re-raiser will fold.

And in response to the 1st question:

THEORY OF POKER, P 55:

A good example of playing a hand for the implied odds occurs in hold 'em when You have a small pair in the hole. It's about 8 to 1 against flopping that card to hit three of a kind, but the small pair is worth playing in most cases even getting something like 5 to 1. If there is 50.00 in the pot and it is 10 to You in a 10-20 game, You are getting implied odds of about 150 to 10, or 15 to 1, since You should average about 100 further profit when You do flop a set of trips.

[quote=dimseven][quote=Rocketwadster]

Care to elaborate on which book he advocates doing this? I don't believe it is in HFAP (but again will have to check when I get home), and if it is, I highly doubt it says to do this 100% of the time (ie. automatic raise). I am still trying to absorb (through osmosis) his thoughts, so maybe I am missing this part.

Also, why is it a slim chance that it will be re-raised after us? We know nothing about how the table has been playing. We know nothing about what our perceived table image currently is. I know many a small stakes player who would raise here when next to act, making it more difficult for people to call after limping, as well as have seen many people re-raise that raise, with a wide variety of holdings, many of which have us beat right now.

I would rather raise here with jack ten suited than with pocket 6's. 8)[/quote]

First of all, it's a slim chance that the person to act right after You will re-raise, and it's a slimmer chance that all 5 after the re-raiser will fold.

No, it's not. We are the BB, UTG (who limped) is next. If there was going to be a re-raise after our raise, it would be from the person who was first into the pot. I would re-raise from that position with a wide variety of hands for just this reason. Maybe I am wrong in playing that way, but I see it (and occasionally do it) a fair bit at small stakes...
And in response to the 1st question:

THEORY OF POKER, P 55:

A good example of playing a hand for the implied odds occurs in hold 'em when You have a small pair in the hole. It's about 8 to 1 against flopping that card to hit three of a kind, but the small pair is worth playing in most cases even getting something like 5 to 1. If there is 50.00 in the pot and it is 10 to You in a 10-20 game, You are getting implied odds of about 150 to 10, or 15 to 1, since You should average about 100 further profit when You do flop a set of trips.

Where in this paragraph does he advocate raising from the BB with a small pocket pair after 6 limpers? All you have done is show where he advocates playing the pair in the first case. This hasn't convinced me of anything, and I doubt it will convince anyone else. IF Sklansky says to do it, I will take it as gospel, but I need to see ti to believe it first. Sorry.

First, automatic raise preflop. With You on the BB and 7 to the pot in total, You're getting 13-1 on the raise and You'll flop a set 1 in 8 times.

Wait, how are you getting 13-1 on the raise PF? You're in the BB for the existing pot. A raise gets you 6 to 1 on your money, assuming everyone calls. Doesn't look like an automatic raise to me at all.

Ya I found that to be some interesting math as well.

I agree with a flop cap, but raising a bricked turn when bet into is chip spewage, unless I have a read that tells me that this guy is a lag

Okay, I checked HFAP, and in the blinds section, Sklansky does indicated that it "may be" correct to raise from the BB to a lot of limpers with a hand such as ten jack suited, ace 5 suited, or a small pocket pair.

As I indicated, I believed that there were certainhands to do it some of the time, and this is one of them. Not every time though... 8)

Okay, I checked HFAP, and in the blinds section, Sklansky does indicated that it "may be" correct to raise from the BB to a lot of limpers with a hand such as ten jack suited, ace 5 suited, or a small pocket pair.

Yeah I wouldn't necessarily say that the PF raise was wrong, but it's the "13-1 on the raise" math that was completely screwy. If that's how you saw a situation with many limpers in the BB, I don't even want to think what else you're raising with, thinking it's for value.

raise the flop everytime to protect your hand by making the rest of the field face two cold.

You're getting 6-1 on the raise, 13-1 in EQUITY because that blind is going in regardless.

6-1 on the raise, 13-1 EQUITY.

I'm raising A-X suited here and a PP.

don't forget hands that play well multiway, like ten jack suited...

I don't think we can protect our hand here against a flush draw. The raise is for value. If we are ahead we are well ahead, and if we are behind we have 7 outs to improve on turn and 10 to improve on the river.

Yeah I've changed my mind to agree to just calling down to a turn raise. My thinking was at lower limits (up to 2-4 or 3-6) a lot of people over value their top pair w/ flush draw, but after considering it, they don't over value them THAT much.