Party Poker 0.50/1 Hold'em (6 max, 6 handed) converter

Preflop: econ_tim is MP with Q:diamond:, Q:spade:.
UTG calls, econ_tim raises, UTG calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 2:club:, K:heart:, J:spade: (3 players)
UTG checks, econ_tim bets, UTG folds, econ_tim calls.

Turn: (5.75 BB) 9:spade: (2 players)
econ_tim checks, Button bets, econ_tim calls.

River: (7.75 BB) 9:club: (2 players)
econ_tim checks, Button bets, econ_tim calls.

Final Pot: 9.75 BB

In short-handed games, and especially against aggressive players, I'm more likely to call down with my PP when the flop brings an overcard.

Here, Villain is aggressive and seems smart. So he could interpret my flop bet as a continuation bet and raise with a pair of jacks or worse. I'll call down unless things get really scary.

An alternative line would be gaybetting the turn, but I don't like bet/folding this hand, and I don't like calling a raise either.

I like it.

What do you think about bet/calling the river?

I'd do it against a more passive player, but I was pretty sure he would bet the river with whatever he had.

It might be safe to bet since the board paired on the river and he probably wouldn't raise with Kx.

Bet/fold vs. a passive, right?

Yeah, I don't see any point in betting this river if the guy will do it for you.

to help me drill this in my head.
As it's the same paly I would make.
But if I lose, it seems "so obvious".

What hands should the Button be raising with here?
That we beat.
That he bets till river (considering he's Agg, this won't liimit his holdings as much
That he calls 2 cold from 2 pos raiser.

I'm not saying Button has to be a poor palyer for us to win this often enough; jsut wondering what range we put him on.

thanks.

AJ off
44-88 ?

thanks.

I'm still trying to learn how to play 6-max tables, so bare with me. I could be way off base.

But why not 3-bet the flop and see where you are at?

I really don't like giving up the lead aggression here. If he caps here or smooth calls and then raises you on the turn, you can throw your hand away on the turn if you don't improve.

If he has the king he has the king. At least if you are betting at him there is a chance he will lay down a small king, where as if you are just calling his bets he isn't going anywhere.

I think playing hands like this passively is a horrible thing to do, but that's just me. I prefer an aggressive style where I put my money in on my terms, not my opponents.

So basically you'd rather fold hands like AJ QJ 44-88 rather then have them do the betting for you.

What? I'm assuming you mean make players holding these hands fold?

What I want is to stay in control of my hand and make players holding AJ, QJ and 44-88 pay as much as possible to draw out on me. I'm not going to give them the opportunity to choose to draw out on me for free.

No good comes from just going into a check/call mode in these situations. None at all.

lol. ok.

aseem

Enough to make calling down profitable. 6-max....

If you want to laugh at me that's cool. I get laughed at all the time. But at least explain to me why I'm wrong, because I don't understand anything by you just laughing. :-)

3 betting this flop is major spewage, even 3 betting with the best hand is terrible. You want your opponent to think QJ is good andby 3 betting your opponent will probably fold a worse hand on the turn and call down with better hands. Thus, you go into check/call mode to win the most from worse hands and lose the least to better hands.

The good that comes from check/calling in these situations is that you don't scare away worse hands, and you don't put in unecessary bets when you are way behind.

breakingliberty,

if our opponent turns up 88 face-up, do you think we make more by three-betting the flop, or by calling his flop raise and letting him bet the turn (reasonably assuming he would fold the turn if we three-bet the flop)?

aseem

But then your letting him draw out on you on his terms. He might not bet and choose to take a free card instead. Or if he picks up his flush draw on the turn he may choose to check behind you and take a free card as well.

I thought poker was about making your opponents pay to draw out on you and staying in control of the hand. Putting them on the decision.

I'm not saying any one is wrong, I'm just saying that is how I was taught. Please explain to me how is my thinking flawed?

Your thinking is correct that you should make your opponents pay to draw out on you, but in this situation our opponent will often be ahead. Because of this we have to let him take control of the hand and possibly suck out on us. However, having him suck-out relatively cheaply isn't near as bad as us betting into trips.