Seat 1: cutook1 (1440 in chips)
Seat 2: mooracer00 (1490 in chips)
Seat 3: Teldren (1440 in chips)
Seat 4: kagsw (1350 in chips)
Seat 5: Round42 (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: bamaphis (1810 in chips)
Seat 7: CookieDough (860 in chips)
Seat 8: Aleksei (2110 in chips)
Seat 9: BillyBizzle (1500 in chips)
bamaphis: posts small blind 10
CookieDough: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to BillyBizzle [Ks Kd]
Aleksei: calls 20
BillyBizzle: raises 60 to 80
cutook1: folds
mooracer00: folds
Teldren: folds
kagsw: folds
Round42: folds
bamaphis: calls 70
CookieDough: folds
Aleksei: folds
*** FLOP *** [9d Qs Qd]
bamaphis: checks
BillyBizzle: bets 120
bamaphis: raises 210 to 330
BillyBizzle: calls 210
*** TURN *** [9d Qs Qd] [Th]
bamaphis: bets 1400 and is all-in
BillyBizzle: ??
This was the 4th hand of a 30+3, so I couldn't get a read here. Whaddya do?
Full Version: back from xmas, here we go
I've been thinking a lot about overpairs and top pair a lot the last few days after falling into a rut of treating them like the nuts.
In my current paranoid state I would fold to the flop raise, virtually certain IK'm facing a set of Qs. The other possibilities for his raise are A9, soemwhat unlikely in the face of the pre-flop raise, and AK, also unlikely with only two Ks out.
Out of position with a high pair on the board I wonder if a smaller lead or even a check on the flop isnt better. The reason a check may make sense is two fold:
1-it seems like a situation where a lead is likely to be called or raised when you are behind and folded to when you are ahead.
2-if youve established that you are an aggressive player your opponent cant be sure if you are slow-playing or weak so a bet from him gives the same information that a raise to a lead would give.
The only major problem I see with a check is that there are some opponents who will bet into you at any sign of weakness. That can be combatted over the long run by nailing him when you have slowplayed, which will inhibit those autobets. The first time it comes up at a given table at least you might lose less to a set then making a continuation bet that is raised or called and raised on the turn (as in this hand).
In my current paranoid state I would fold to the flop raise, virtually certain IK'm facing a set of Qs. The other possibilities for his raise are A9, soemwhat unlikely in the face of the pre-flop raise, and AK, also unlikely with only two Ks out.
Out of position with a high pair on the board I wonder if a smaller lead or even a check on the flop isnt better. The reason a check may make sense is two fold:
1-it seems like a situation where a lead is likely to be called or raised when you are behind and folded to when you are ahead.
2-if youve established that you are an aggressive player your opponent cant be sure if you are slow-playing or weak so a bet from him gives the same information that a raise to a lead would give.
The only major problem I see with a check is that there are some opponents who will bet into you at any sign of weakness. That can be combatted over the long run by nailing him when you have slowplayed, which will inhibit those autobets. The first time it comes up at a given table at least you might lose less to a set then making a continuation bet that is raised or called and raised on the turn (as in this hand).
QUOTE (copernicus)
I've been thinking a lot about overpairs and top pair a lot the last few days after falling into a rut of treating them like the nuts.
In my current paranoid state I would fold to the flop raise, virtually certain IK'm facing a set of Qs. The other possibilities for his raise are A9, soemwhat unlikely in the face of the pre-flop raise, and AK, also unlikely with only two Ks out.
Out of position with a high pair on the board I wonder if a smaller lead or even a check on the flop isnt better. The reason a check may make sense is two fold:
1-it seems like a situation where a lead is likely to be called or raised when you are behind and folded to when you are ahead.
2-if youve established that you are an aggressive player your opponent cant be sure if you are slow-playing or weak so a bet from him gives the same information that a raise to a lead would give.
The only major problem I see with a check is that there are some opponents who will bet into you at any sign of weakness. That can be combatted over the long run by nailing him when you have slowplayed, which will inhibit those autobets. The first time it comes up at a given table at least you might lose less to a set then making a continuation bet that is raised or called and raised on the turn (as in this hand).
In my current paranoid state I would fold to the flop raise, virtually certain IK'm facing a set of Qs. The other possibilities for his raise are A9, soemwhat unlikely in the face of the pre-flop raise, and AK, also unlikely with only two Ks out.
Out of position with a high pair on the board I wonder if a smaller lead or even a check on the flop isnt better. The reason a check may make sense is two fold:
1-it seems like a situation where a lead is likely to be called or raised when you are behind and folded to when you are ahead.
2-if youve established that you are an aggressive player your opponent cant be sure if you are slow-playing or weak so a bet from him gives the same information that a raise to a lead would give.
The only major problem I see with a check is that there are some opponents who will bet into you at any sign of weakness. That can be combatted over the long run by nailing him when you have slowplayed, which will inhibit those autobets. The first time it comes up at a given table at least you might lose less to a set then making a continuation bet that is raised or called and raised on the turn (as in this hand).
Based on your posts the past few days, I thought you would go in this direction. It took me a while but I eventually made a decision. The key factor was...what does he put me on?
As an early position raise to a limper he would initially put you on TT+, AQ+. Your lead into QQ doesnt do anything to modify that, nor does your call to a small reraise. When the T hits the turn, hes thinks he's ahead of that range or can push you off the hand.
You have 3 possible TTs, 1 QQ and 8 AQs that you arent folding.
You have 6 JJs, 6 KKs , 6 AAs and 16 AK that could be pushed off the hand if he sells a set. If you could be pushed off these hands even 1/3 the time he has odds to try and sell a bluff, which puts him on a very wide range of hands including pairs and overcards and straight/flush draws which you are obviously way ahead of.
That would make the turn an easy call.
You have 3 possible TTs, 1 QQ and 8 AQs that you arent folding.
You have 6 JJs, 6 KKs , 6 AAs and 16 AK that could be pushed off the hand if he sells a set. If you could be pushed off these hands even 1/3 the time he has odds to try and sell a bluff, which puts him on a very wide range of hands including pairs and overcards and straight/flush draws which you are obviously way ahead of.
That would make the turn an easy call.
QUOTE (copernicus)
As an early position raise to a limper he would initially put you on TT+, AQ+. Your lead into QQ doesnt do anything to modify that, nor does your call to a small reraise. When the T hits the turn, hes thinks he's ahead of that range or can push you off the hand.
You have 3 possible TTs, 1 QQ and 8 AQs that you arent folding.
You have 6 JJs, 6 KKs , 6 AAs and 16 AK that could be pushed off the hand if he sells a set. If you could be pushed off these hands even 1/3 the time he has odds to try and sell a bluff, which puts him on a very wide range of hands including pairs and overcards and straight/flush draws which you are obviously way ahead of.
That would make the turn an easy call.
You have 3 possible TTs, 1 QQ and 8 AQs that you arent folding.
You have 6 JJs, 6 KKs , 6 AAs and 16 AK that could be pushed off the hand if he sells a set. If you could be pushed off these hands even 1/3 the time he has odds to try and sell a bluff, which puts him on a very wide range of hands including pairs and overcards and straight/flush draws which you are obviously way ahead of.
That would make the turn an easy call.
:wink: 22.
QUOTE (Bizzle)
QUOTE (copernicus)
As an early position raise to a limper he would initially put you on TT+, AQ+. Your lead into QQ doesnt do anything to modify that, nor does your call to a small reraise. When the T hits the turn, hes thinks he's ahead of that range or can push you off the hand.
You have 3 possible TTs, 1 QQ and 8 AQs that you arent folding.
You have 6 JJs, 6 KKs , 6 AAs and 16 AK that could be pushed off the hand if he sells a set. If you could be pushed off these hands even 1/3 the time he has odds to try and sell a bluff, which puts him on a very wide range of hands including pairs and overcards and straight/flush draws which you are obviously way ahead of.
That would make the turn an easy call.
You have 3 possible TTs, 1 QQ and 8 AQs that you arent folding.
You have 6 JJs, 6 KKs , 6 AAs and 16 AK that could be pushed off the hand if he sells a set. If you could be pushed off these hands even 1/3 the time he has odds to try and sell a bluff, which puts him on a very wide range of hands including pairs and overcards and straight/flush draws which you are obviously way ahead of.
That would make the turn an easy call.
:wink: 22.
Maybe that will kick me out of level 1 thinking for a while, thanks!
Given that hand how does it play out against a flop check instead of the lead?
He bets into us, probably something lower than the 330 we had to commit as it was played. We can now be the one to re-raise, possibly leading to a bit more commitment on the flop then we had with the continuation bet.
In a sense, by checking with a very good but vulnerable hand we've put him out of position for one round, and can gain more information than the CB. What do you think?
QUOTE (copernicus)
QUOTE (Bizzle)
QUOTE (copernicus)
As an early position raise to a limper he would initially put you on TT+, AQ+. Your lead into QQ doesnt do anything to modify that, nor does your call to a small reraise. When the T hits the turn, hes thinks he's ahead of that range or can push you off the hand.
You have 3 possible TTs, 1 QQ and 8 AQs that you arent folding.
You have 6 JJs, 6 KKs , 6 AAs and 16 AK that could be pushed off the hand if he sells a set. If you could be pushed off these hands even 1/3 the time he has odds to try and sell a bluff, which puts him on a very wide range of hands including pairs and overcards and straight/flush draws which you are obviously way ahead of.
That would make the turn an easy call.
You have 3 possible TTs, 1 QQ and 8 AQs that you arent folding.
You have 6 JJs, 6 KKs , 6 AAs and 16 AK that could be pushed off the hand if he sells a set. If you could be pushed off these hands even 1/3 the time he has odds to try and sell a bluff, which puts him on a very wide range of hands including pairs and overcards and straight/flush draws which you are obviously way ahead of.
That would make the turn an easy call.
:wink: 22.
Maybe that will kick me out of level 1 thinking for a while, thanks!
Given that hand how does it play out against a flop check instead of the lead?
He bets into us, probably something lower than the 330 we had to commit as it was played. We can now be the one to re-raise, possibly leading to a bit more commitment on the flop then we had with the continuation bet.
In a sense, by checking with a very good but vulnerable hand we've put him out of position for one round, and can gain more information than the CB. What do you think?
The thing I don't like is the fact that I would be checking a suited board where if an uber-scare card comes off (like the 10 or jack of diamonds or an ace) I might have to fold straight up on the turn to a bet where I am way way way ahead, 77. If this board was a little more ragged (ie not suited or connected like QQ7) I would consider checking behind to avoid paying off a queen as often. With the board as screwy as it is, I think that the flop bet serves as some protection against some crazy hands (like 77 or A10).
Of course, when your opponent decides that he is going to push you off the hand no matter what...it doesn't really matter. :-)
Let me think about a flop check some more here-I'll post some more in the morning.
hmmm....
very interesting hand. A lot of people will bluff into a paired board. The higher the buy in, the more likely it is that you'll be up against a bluff on a paired board.
Hard for me to say much more with any kind of accuracy. That is definitely my least favorite situation in tournament poker by far.
very interesting hand. A lot of people will bluff into a paired board. The higher the buy in, the more likely it is that you'll be up against a bluff on a paired board.
Hard for me to say much more with any kind of accuracy. That is definitely my least favorite situation in tournament poker by far.
QUOTE (Bizzle)
QUOTE (copernicus)
QUOTE (Bizzle)
QUOTE (copernicus)
As an early position raise to a limper he would initially put you on TT+, AQ+. Your lead into QQ doesnt do anything to modify that, nor does your call to a small reraise. When the T hits the turn, hes thinks he's ahead of that range or can push you off the hand.
You have 3 possible TTs, 1 QQ and 8 AQs that you arent folding.
You have 6 JJs, 6 KKs , 6 AAs and 16 AK that could be pushed off the hand if he sells a set. If you could be pushed off these hands even 1/3 the time he has odds to try and sell a bluff, which puts him on a very wide range of hands including pairs and overcards and straight/flush draws which you are obviously way ahead of.
That would make the turn an easy call.
You have 3 possible TTs, 1 QQ and 8 AQs that you arent folding.
You have 6 JJs, 6 KKs , 6 AAs and 16 AK that could be pushed off the hand if he sells a set. If you could be pushed off these hands even 1/3 the time he has odds to try and sell a bluff, which puts him on a very wide range of hands including pairs and overcards and straight/flush draws which you are obviously way ahead of.
That would make the turn an easy call.
:wink: 22.
Maybe that will kick me out of level 1 thinking for a while, thanks!
Given that hand how does it play out against a flop check instead of the lead?
He bets into us, probably something lower than the 330 we had to commit as it was played. We can now be the one to re-raise, possibly leading to a bit more commitment on the flop then we had with the continuation bet.
In a sense, by checking with a very good but vulnerable hand we've put him out of position for one round, and can gain more information than the CB. What do you think?
The thing I don't like is the fact that I would be checking a suited board where if an uber-scare card comes off (like the 10 or jack of diamonds or an ace) I might have to fold straight up on the turn to a bet where I am way way way ahead, 77. If this board was a little more ragged (ie not suited or connected like QQ7) I would consider checking behind to avoid paying off a queen as often. With the board as screwy as it is, I think that the flop bet serves as some protection against some crazy hands (like 77 or A10).
Of course, when your opponent decides that he is going to push you off the hand no matter what...it doesn't really matter. :-)
Let me think about a flop check some more here-I'll post some more in the morning.
With only one opponent I'm not concerned about the flush draw. I am somewhat concerned about giving a free card to an A, but that is less than 10% to hit on the turn.
Also the reason I'm thinking about the flop check is not so much to pay less to the Q, but to win more with the KKs. Even if he doesnt bet the flop, he is more likely to pay a turn bet with an underpair when I check the flop.
Having not read any of the responses yet, I call. For some reason, no one ever wants to believe you have a pocket pair.
Ultimately, the reason I'd call is that the hand just makes absolutely no sense from your perspective. What possible holding could he have that he's willing to slowplay, making a small check raise on the flop, and then shoving all in for a huge amount on the turn? I think he probably thought you had something like two high unpaired cards, and that you wouldn't be able to call that big a bet. I remember making plays like this a lot when I was first starting out, not taking the time to think through whether the story that I'm trying to create with my bluff makes any sense.
Ultimately, the reason I'd call is that the hand just makes absolutely no sense from your perspective. What possible holding could he have that he's willing to slowplay, making a small check raise on the flop, and then shoving all in for a huge amount on the turn? I think he probably thought you had something like two high unpaired cards, and that you wouldn't be able to call that big a bet. I remember making plays like this a lot when I was first starting out, not taking the time to think through whether the story that I'm trying to create with my bluff makes any sense.
I like check/calling the flop and seeing what develops on the turn, if he checks behind I may even check a blank on the turn again...
You're giving your opponent the chance to catch an ace, but a lot of times you're getting worse hands to do the betting for you or give you action later in the hand.
Given how the hand went, I would have to call the turn. It's rare to see trip queens played this strongly IMO.
Edit: Read the responses, looks like me and copernicus are on the same line of thinking, scary, scary stuff :shock: :-)
You're giving your opponent the chance to catch an ace, but a lot of times you're getting worse hands to do the betting for you or give you action later in the hand.
Given how the hand went, I would have to call the turn. It's rare to see trip queens played this strongly IMO.
Edit: Read the responses, looks like me and copernicus are on the same line of thinking, scary, scary stuff :shock: :-)
QUOTE (PoppinFresh)
I like check/calling the flop and seeing what develops on the turn, if he checks behind I may even check a blank on the turn again...
You're giving your opponent the chance to catch an ace, but a lot of times you're getting worse hands to do the betting for you or give you action later in the hand.
Given how the hand went, I would have to call the turn. It's rare to see trip queens played this strongly IMO.
Edit: Read the responses, looks like me and copernicus are on the same line of thinking, scary, scary stuff :shock: :-)
You're giving your opponent the chance to catch an ace, but a lot of times you're getting worse hands to do the betting for you or give you action later in the hand.
Given how the hand went, I would have to call the turn. It's rare to see trip queens played this strongly IMO.
Edit: Read the responses, looks like me and copernicus are on the same line of thinking, scary, scary stuff :shock: :-)
Only temporarily, lol. Bizzle convinced me that the push is right once you get to level II thinking.
QUOTE (Bizzle)
Seat 1: cutook1 (1440 in chips)
Seat 2: mooracer00 (1490 in chips)
Seat 3: Teldren (1440 in chips)
Seat 4: kagsw (1350 in chips)
Seat 5: Round42 (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: bamaphis (1810 in chips)
Seat 7: CookieDough (860 in chips)
Seat 8: Aleksei (2110 in chips)
Seat 9: BillyBizzle (1500 in chips)
bamaphis: posts small blind 10
CookieDough: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to BillyBizzle [Ks Kd]
Aleksei: calls 20
BillyBizzle: raises 60 to 80
cutook1: folds
mooracer00: folds
Teldren: folds
kagsw: folds
Round42: folds
bamaphis: calls 70
CookieDough: folds
Aleksei: folds
*** FLOP *** [9d Qs Qd]
bamaphis: checks
BillyBizzle: bets 120
bamaphis: raises 210 to 330
BillyBizzle: calls 210
*** TURN *** [9d Qs Qd] [Th]
bamaphis: bets 1400 and is all-in
BillyBizzle: ??
This was the 4th hand of a 30+3, so I couldn't get a read here. Whaddya do?
Seat 2: mooracer00 (1490 in chips)
Seat 3: Teldren (1440 in chips)
Seat 4: kagsw (1350 in chips)
Seat 5: Round42 (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: bamaphis (1810 in chips)
Seat 7: CookieDough (860 in chips)
Seat 8: Aleksei (2110 in chips)
Seat 9: BillyBizzle (1500 in chips)
bamaphis: posts small blind 10
CookieDough: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to BillyBizzle [Ks Kd]
Aleksei: calls 20
BillyBizzle: raises 60 to 80
cutook1: folds
mooracer00: folds
Teldren: folds
kagsw: folds
Round42: folds
bamaphis: calls 70
CookieDough: folds
Aleksei: folds
*** FLOP *** [9d Qs Qd]
bamaphis: checks
BillyBizzle: bets 120
bamaphis: raises 210 to 330
BillyBizzle: calls 210
*** TURN *** [9d Qs Qd] [Th]
bamaphis: bets 1400 and is all-in
BillyBizzle: ??
This was the 4th hand of a 30+3, so I couldn't get a read here. Whaddya do?
I don't like this siutation one bit. We have no reads, so that doesn't help either.
Only thing we know is that pre-flop, we have one limper, and we only raised 4 X the BB after one limper. I think we need to raise more pre-flop, to at least 4X + one big blind per limper. As it was, the SB called, and the limper folded. Since our initial bet was relatively small pre-flop, the SB can (should) have a much larger spectrum of hands.
On the flop, we bet 120 into a 180 pot (hope my math is close), which I don't mind at all. 1/2 to 2/4's of the pot is good here. We got check-raised on a fairly scary board, which isn't nice at all. Should we not consider re-raising here, as opposed to just calling the check/raise and seeing the turn card? By just calling, we are showing weakness, and can be played off of the best hand many times to a scary turn card. However, by re-re-raising on the flop, we are telling our opponent that our pre-flop raises mean something, and should not be taken lightly (which will also help our image later in the tourney). :?
QUOTE (Rocketwadster)
I don't like this siutation one bit. We have no reads, so that doesn't help either.
Only thing we know is that pre-flop, we have one limper, and we only raised 4 X the BB after one limper. I think we need to raise more pre-flop, to at least 4X + one big blind per limper. As it was, the SB called, and the limper folded. Since our initial bet was relatively small pre-flop, the SB can (should) have a much larger spectrum of hands.
On the flop, we bet 120 into a 180 pot (hope my math is close), which I don't mind at all. 1/2 to 2/4's of the pot is good here. We got check-raised on a fairly scary board, which isn't nice at all. Should we not consider re-raising here, as opposed to just calling the check/raise and seeing the turn card? By just calling, we are showing weakness, and can be played off of the best hand many times to a scary turn card. However, by re-re-raising on the flop, we are telling our opponent that our pre-flop raises mean something, and should not be taken lightly (which will also help our image later in the tourney). :?
Only thing we know is that pre-flop, we have one limper, and we only raised 4 X the BB after one limper. I think we need to raise more pre-flop, to at least 4X + one big blind per limper. As it was, the SB called, and the limper folded. Since our initial bet was relatively small pre-flop, the SB can (should) have a much larger spectrum of hands.
On the flop, we bet 120 into a 180 pot (hope my math is close), which I don't mind at all. 1/2 to 2/4's of the pot is good here. We got check-raised on a fairly scary board, which isn't nice at all. Should we not consider re-raising here, as opposed to just calling the check/raise and seeing the turn card? By just calling, we are showing weakness, and can be played off of the best hand many times to a scary turn card. However, by re-re-raising on the flop, we are telling our opponent that our pre-flop raises mean something, and should not be taken lightly (which will also help our image later in the tourney). :?
The third bet on the flop removes most, if not all hands we beat, and loses all of our chips to hands we lose to. What can you go to on the flop that you won't be able to committ all of your chips to? Seeing the turn to me seemed to be a very +ev play, as you are not committing as many of your chips with very little information.
And as for your preflop raise-I typically do the same during early play. I don't know why I didn't-perhaps my desire for action with my kings blinded me?
QUOTE (therrinn)
Having not read any of the responses yet, I call. For some reason, no one ever wants to believe you have a pocket pair.
Ultimately, the reason I'd call is that the hand just makes absolutely no sense from your perspective. What possible holding could he have that he's willing to slowplay, making a small check raise on the flop, and then shoving all in for a huge amount on the turn? I think he probably thought you had something like two high unpaired cards, and that you wouldn't be able to call that big a bet. I remember making plays like this a lot when I was first starting out, not taking the time to think through whether the story that I'm trying to create with my bluff makes any sense.
Ultimately, the reason I'd call is that the hand just makes absolutely no sense from your perspective. What possible holding could he have that he's willing to slowplay, making a small check raise on the flop, and then shoving all in for a huge amount on the turn? I think he probably thought you had something like two high unpaired cards, and that you wouldn't be able to call that big a bet. I remember making plays like this a lot when I was first starting out, not taking the time to think through whether the story that I'm trying to create with my bluff makes any sense.
I agree with this 100%. This whole discussion is an endorsement for playing big hands fast, isn't it?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.