Sorry guys, couldn't find a converter for FTP hands. (If you do know a place though, I wouldn't mind an URL. )
Full Tilt Poker Game #913946859: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (6137277), Table 1 - 50/100 - No Limit Hold'em - 16:39:44 ET - 2006/08/19
Seat 1: RagDollar (4,045)
Seat 2: PoKaHeAD15 (1,970)
Seat 4: Hero (3,545)
Seat 5: DonkeyPunchBU (1,595)
Seat 9: neogab909 (2,345)
DonkeyPunchBU posts the small blind of 50
neogab909 posts the big blind of 100
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [4h As]
RagDollar folds
PoKaHeAD15 folds
Hero calls 100
DonkeyPunchBU calls 50
neogab909 checks
*** FLOP *** [Tc 4c Js]
DonkeyPunchBU checks
neogab909 checks
Hero bets 150
DonkeyPunchBU calls 150
neogab909 folds
*** TURN *** [Tc 4c Js] [Td]
DonkeyPunchBU checks
Hero checks
*** RIVER *** [Tc 4c Js Td] [3s]
DonkeyPunchBU has 15 seconds left to act
DonkeyPunchBU bets 400
Hero ??
*** SUMMARY ***

I had been bullying him around for most of the game. Betting when I was on the button into him, check raising him, minraising him, etc. Overall, he seemed to be a pretty solid, but passive player. What would you guys do?

Couldn't call. Why the check on the turn? I would of made some kind of raise to find out where I was.

Since I had position on him and I didn't want to get into a big confrontation, that's my way of controlling the size of the pot.

I would prioritise getting information over pot size. You don't get a big confrontation but even worse you're faced with a big decision when you don't know where you are.

If you do that, you also have a chance of getting checkraised on a bluff. If you're raised, then what? Fold? Why? You could have the best hand. With this play, you can keep the pot small with mediocre hands.

I'd much rather make this play, keep the pot small, and interpret a possible bet and then decide what to do rather than take a chance of letting the pot grow out of control. I'd much rather do that than get myself caught in a sticky situation that I'd end up regretting, and be forced to act upon impartial information.

You make a a valid point but at this level its unlikely that you'd be check raised as a bluff if your bet is of a good size.

It may be improbable, but it is certainly probable. Obviously are styles of play conflict, which I appreciate so I can understand a different view of this kind of hand.

But I feel like making this play would make this hand as simple as possible. Putting yourself in the position to be checkraised with marginal holdings is never a good spot to be in. I guess, if it helps, although it may already be pretty apparent, is that I like the smallball approach of things.

If there was a serious overbet on the river by him, then that would make my decision pretty easy. If there was a raise and a call, the pot would be bigger, and thus a followed bet or raise on the river would also inevitably increase.

I'm not saying your play is incorrect, the chances are you're a more successful player than me.
I'm the kind of player that would make that move on the turn though as it could win me the pot aswell as give me something to workwith on the river if he calls, if he raises I would just consider myself beaten.

"... win me the pot aswell as give me something to workwith on the river if he calls, if he raises I would just consider myself beaten."

Which is exactly why I checked on the turn. I -hate- making decisions more difficult than what they should be, which is why I was apprehensive. I had been bullying him, and it would be a matter of time before he played back at me, which also helped influence my check on the turn. Even then, if that wasn't the case, I would still check on the turn 70% of the time.

But as I've said, thanks for giving me your input. I thought it was a nice little conversation.

I would fold also.

I dont mind the turn check to keep the pot small, but it could have also been kept small by checking the flop with bottom pair. The question is which one is likely to be more profitable. In this case I think you took the right line.

The other two have shown weakness with their checks to you, so you clearly have some fold equity. It has good informational value if you get check raised, and slows them down on the turn so it can buy you a cheaper card than checking and letting a made hand bet bigger. That made hand might be content to check raise you and you cross them up with the check.

On the other hand they have more potential draws to a big hand than your 5 outer, so you are paying somewhat of a steeper price to see the next card. However, their potential draws will be much easier for you to get away from than it will be for them if you hit the trips or Aces up and they have two pair or TPTK, so the potential payoff is much bigger.

Im not sure if this line would be as strong if you were in middle position of the 3 on the flop, but in position I like it a lot.

Raise preflop. There's absolutely no reason to limp the button with an ace here.

This river is close, but I'd actually make the call. He hasn't raised/bet the flop or turn with a very dangerous board showing. It is my humble opinion that he has either JT or nothing here. This is read dependant - never make this call against a rock, but against anyone capable of making a river bet on a busted draw, call.

Well, the reason why I bet on the flop was to either pick up the pot, or filter out everyone that had missed. Also, I figured that with the bet on the flop, that would also give me potential to allow me to keep the pot small with a check on the turn, assuming he thought that I would continue to be the aggressor with another bet on the turn.

The limp on the button with the Ace is pretty simple.. I had been making many raises from the cutoff and on the button with Ace-weak a few times. It's a simple matter of mixing it up. The last thing I want to do is be predictable.

I agree...twice (three times if you include my prior post!)

Bet the turn, check behind on the river. This wasn't really such a terrible turn card for you, BTW. If he check-raises you, he is almost never bluffing. The board has two to a flush and two to a straight, so he can certainly be drawing. By showing weakness on the turn, you allow him to draw for free and set yourself up to get bluffed on the river.

The bottom line is that the decision on the river is much easier if you have shown aggression on the flop and turn.

I completely disagree. I think with the line I took made things much, much easier. It allowed me to interpret his bet on the river and act upon it, and that's one of my strong points in online poker, is deciding what a bet means. His 400 into the 600 pot just cried weakness to me. I thought he had something like Ace-weak.. definitely not a hand that could beat mine, however, as I reread the board, the play of the hand, and his large bet on the river.

As it turns out, I made the call, and he showed Q9 for a missed straight.

I think you definitely need to raise pf. If you have been raising from the CO or Button with Ax, then you need to start mixing up the sizes of your raises. I go between 2.5x and 3.5x the BB when the blinds get above 50/100. Also, they don't know you're raising with Ax everytime, so you still have the deception factor going for you.

I like the check on the turn, and the river bet could mean anything. But seeing as how you checked behind on the turn, I would think that villain assumed you were trying to buy the pot on the flop, and had given up. I like a call on the river.

sweet, you rule, but in a $10 stt, it's important to remember that his bet is just as likely to mean that he likes peanut butter. so patting yourself on the back for making a great read here is only likely to lose you money in the future.

What's he going to do differently with a ten as opposed to a flush or straight draw, and how can you know this by playing with the guy for at most 30 minutes?

I had to laugh at "definitely not a hand that could beat mine." Reminds me of the old saying, "put them on a hand you can beat and call."

Tough hand here, because you can only beat a bluff, and you may have induced one. For the amount you've invested so far, it doesnt seem worth it here, to make a "good call".

you played A4 for 700t ?

mixing it up means open raising 65s from the button, not limping with A-rag.

But I do that all the time....from utg

"You must respect UTG raises."

Because the pots he did value bet out was never more than 2/3rds of the pot. It was a chance, sure, but I figured the chances were higher that he was bluffing than having a hand at all.

Anyways, I'm glad you found the comedic humor in it. It's a shame that I also considered the hands that beat me, decided if it was possible knowing his play style, and the way he played it, that it was not a probability that he had a hand that beat mine. The way the entire hand came down, it was logical to me that he missed, and was giving his only shot to win the pot right on the spot.

It's fine if you want to scrutinize my way of thinking, but don't get hissy because I decided I didn't agree with your input.


If you think limping with Ace-weak isn't mixing it up, well, then maybe you should consider it. I'm not going to raise, consistantly, all the time with an ace in the cutoff or button. Limping is a fine option. Alternating between limping, raising, and calling raises is certainly "mixing it up". You can't just "mix it up" by the various hands you might hold, Actuary.. Sure, that's one way, but there's that entirely different factor you consider. You should -never- suggest that you raise with Ace-weak all the time when it's folded around to you and you're on or one off the button. The fact that you have a preset idea everytime is absurd, and is certainly predictable. Varying the raise size won't cut it, since there's only so many ways you can vary it. Limping, or calling, is one of the better ways to disguise any hand. And while you may let a weaker hand hit a monster flop, it can always work in your favor the exact same amount of times it may not. And while the risk may be high, the reward factor is right up there with it.

if I raise TJs and A4 and KK and K7s and 44 and 94 (for grins) when opening, how am I predictable?

to me mixin it up is best by raisng hands you normally fold/call with but will raise occassionally.

playing A-rag period is precarious.
I would not doubt your post flop game is superior to mine; so maybe when flop comes A89 you can handle yourself just fine.

fwiw, I actually fold A-rag a lot, unless blinds are worth stealing.
in which case I'm raising so many hands, limping would look strange.

Actuary - you're mistaking the OP for someone who wanted to post a hand here to learn something. OP wanted to post this hand to TEACH us something. Namely how great he is.

OP - You played the hand somewhere between poorly and miserably. You can't "know a player's style" well enough in a $11 SNG to put him on any kind of range that you beat. It's simply not possible with the limited number of hands you see and the erratic behavior of low buy-in players. There's also little reason to "mix it up" by limping a hand that's favored over 2 random hands. Your opponents aren't paying any attention to what you're doing. Even if they were they won't have enough hands against you to form any but the most general of opinions about your play style.

I completely agree with Actuary about raising preflop here. I don't see any benefit to limping. I don't see it as mixing it up. A-rag is not a hand you mix it up with, it is a raise or fold hand. As the blinds increase and players get eliminated it goes from a folding to a raising hand if you are opening the pot. I don't think limping with A4 is a fine option 5 handed on the button. I think it is an auto-raise. I don't see how "disguising" A4 is a benefit to you. It's not a hand you are going to hit a monster with very often. It has very little strength. If you hit your ace you might be in big trouble if you are outkicked. When you hit just a pair of 4's you are in a very marginal situation. With A Rag I want the blinds and move on to the next hand. In this situation you were fortunate. I hate the limp there, I HATE it.

As Actuary said, if you are raising with all types of hands you won't be predictable. When 5 handed and being 2nd in chips with blinds now starting to get significant you should be opening a ton of pots and you will NOT be predictable.

As for the post flop play I think I would have played it the same way. I may have value bet the turn depending on my opponent.

Including calling the river? Assuming someone holds a gun to my head and forces me to limp my plan is to CB the flop and give up anything but a miracle. Losing big pots with marginal hands in bsb situations has been a big leak of mine.

If youre not folding A-rag in early and middle position 90% of the time then you are either an unbelievably good post-flop player that can get away from it when its losing and collect on it when it wins, or you have a big leak.

In a no-foldem game where Ax is rarely folded, you are begging to be dominated, and there is no way to read the players well enough to know when its good or isnt.

You beat low-limit tournaments by extracting the most chips you can when you have very strong hands, and by capitalizing on the implied odds of potential monsters like suited connectors when the table is passive enough to let you see cheap flops. You wont get anywhere with A4 in the long run.

I have no problem with the call on the river. You have to do it with the way you played the hand. Your reasoning reminded me of a funny quote. No harm meant.


psujohn covered this nicely.

I like to see flops. I play all sorts of hands, as long as they're playable. A4 is definitely in the upper portions of what I usually play.

I am -very- confident in my post flop play. I've been able to REALLY capitalize on the weak players in these limits because I know what I'm doing.

By reading your last paragraph, I'm getting the gist that maybe you misunderstand why I'm playing an A4. In this spot, I'm a favorite over any random hand. I'm not looking to play a big pot unless I flop a monster, which A4 has a potential of doing by flopping a wheel. Of course, it's ridiculous to go by the theory "any two cards can make a full house" in playing these kinds of hands, that's not the point. I'm looking to pick up an ace against a higher pair, or even a pocket pair, and pick up a small pot. I'm confident in my ability to decipher if I have the best of it or not.

Again, I certainly do play my fair share of suited connectors. Any possible chance I get to play them, I'm in there, as long as the logical conditions are set. I'm a very loose player, and it's not rare for me to see 65% of the flops in one SNG. I'd say about 70% of the time, I came in with an openening raise. 20% of the time, I call a raise, and 10% of the time it's with a limp.

Going back up to what I said, A4 is definitely a playable hand by my standards. I'm completely disregarding what "strategy" has to say, now, since he can't seem to be able to grasp the concept of what I'm trying to convey. I've never said I will play A4 any chance I get. Just like almost any other hand, it's completely situational. I find a situation to play it in, and this time around, I chose to limp with it.

I absoloutely love to steal blinds, since it fits in with my aggressive style and no one can really always say I'm on a steal if I'm opening up from every position out there. A play that I have incorporated for awhile, though, is the one I tried to make here.
I was completely ready to fold to a raise here. But my incentive for playing this hand was to steal the blinds. And rather than making it a bit more obvious with a raise on the button, I like to bet out on the flop, and hope they have nothing. Obviously, this has some risk to it, and I understand that, but so does raising from the button and having a blind wake up with a large hand. He either has it in his hand preflop, or makes one on the flop. Either way, your chances of picking up the blinds in both spots are around the same. It's one of my favorite plays to make.

I'm not trying to teach anything. I'm a learning player, and I believe a close minded approach to poker will hinder you in the long run. It's important for me to grasp other's views so I can understand their thinking, and with that new gem, I will undoubtedly be able to apply it to any future games I may play.

Actuary - I understand your point in saying that A4 can be disguised if you're raising with a wide range of hands. However, like I said, hands are also well disguised by just simply limping, or calling. Not everything has to be done with a raise. Obviously, since this is one hand, I can see where you're coming from, but let me assure you that I raise more often than not with a hand like this than limp. But to be truly unpredictable and just not hyper-aggressive, I believe limping from time to time is a move to really consider.


EDIT: Sorry, that was really unorganized, but I've been up for 28 hours, so I'm not really able to construct a proper paragraph. >>

I look forward to learning more from you.


I limp a ton. Probably too much for most tastes
Just not with A4 from LP.
I'd rather limp with QQ there ( not that I would, unless a bet monkey was in the blinds)

I feel as strongly against limping as you do. I'd normally play it the same way post flop as well, CB and then check down or fold. If my opponent had any poker skills whatsoever I'm done with the hand.

I played my share of $11 SNG's and the way hand played out is exactly how the majority of players play. Limp, check call, check, bet river. That is how a missed draw is played a large percentage of the time. Some people will even bet ace high here. You'll run into slowplayed trips/boat a small percentage of the time, but your 4's are good a lot here considering all the weakness shown.

The pot is $1000 and its $400 to call so I can't say the call is correct if we breakdown the percentages of what his holdings are, but i figure after the first few levels I'll have a basic understanding of what type of player this is, and if I judge him to be a poor player I'm going to look him up. Against a rock or a decent player I'll let it go.

All that said, I'm not open limping with A4 on the button 5 handed ever.

Really? I'd play QQ in that spot for value most of the time. I see myself making that play 3 handed, but not with the amount of players still left in the game.

I'd play QQ for it's value, which contrasts my goal with the A-4o to pick up the blinds on the flop. The 4 on the flop obviously changed the course of the hand, but that was the general mindset I had going into it.

yes me too.
that's why I said unless a bet monkey (someone who will raise/lead any preflop/flop if they smell weakness) is in the blinds

just trying to make the contrast with A4, which I don't want to play post flop.

Ohh.. I get it.

I see what you're saying now. And I understand. But with my playstyle and how I play, I'm perfectly fine playing this hand postflop if I feel I have a shot at outplaying my opponent.

The obvious answer to this is to raise or fold preflop, but I didn't look at the responses to see if anyone had bothered to tell you that. So there that is. Sorry for not being direct.

It's unfortunate that you think those are the only two options. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Sorry, you're not Gus Hansen, Mr. 65%+ VP$IP.

What's your problem?

You seem to not be able to comprehend the concept that someone might have different views than you do in -one- hand, and without backing up your side with theories or claims, you decide to make petty personal attacks that don't really do much to make you look very mature, let alone intelligent.

You're right. I'm not Gus Hansen. I don't have the balls to play 9-2. 6-2 is fine. 9-2? Ew, no, sorry.

Seeing about 65% of the flops has obviously worked for me. I am sincerely apologetic if you think I'm cramping Gus' style. But if you aren't going to have anything insightful to add, then I don't even know why you bother in the first place.

I'm giving you crap because you posted with no intention of listening to what anyone else had to say. It's pretty funny that you and actuary are fast friends--he's often guilty of the same. But you can go ahead and continue to write your novel about why you're willing to limp A4o on the button in a low limit sit and go. I'm sure your ROI will thank you for that.

"Good luck."

Im not speaking for strategy here, even though you are responding to him. If seeing 65% of the flops has worked for you, then its the limits youre playing at. No one playing real poker, including Phil Ivey and Gus Hansen, can succeed in tournaments seeing 65% of the flops.

Even at donk limits I find it hard to believe that its working for you. Post flop play with crap starting hands means reading the donks, which, if their play is as random and illogical as these latest threads indicate, cant be done.

and if you are talking low-limit one table SnGs, I'll just outright call BS. It is impossible to find the implied odds in a one table SnG structure to make playing that loose remotely possible.

hi.

let me know when it happens so I can respond directly.
You may be the only person who hasn't seen me post 100,000 times that the primary reason I give opinions is to learn from other criticizing them. Obviously, that goes double for hands I post. Defending a position you think (thought) was best facilitates more debate. This came from left field so I hope you return to expand on it.

And I'm not friends with OP.
Not even sure where you got that.
My view on playing the hand is like you, raise/fold preflop.
Perhaps he thought I was more civil; but most people know I can be quite sarcastic/*******. However, I like to save that for those who know I'm kidding.

You might be feeling a need to knock me down a peg because you see me harassing Copernicus. I'm just grabbing straws since I have no clue.

Well that negates the whole point of that paragraph, doesn't it? I see 65% of the flops. Doesn't mean I win every hand in the process either, bud.


Obviously, their play isn't "random" and as "illogical" you may think. I have been consistently been a winner at these limits for a year. I've had my fair share of variance, including being a really big loser for an entire week. I feel with the amount of SNGs I play, I have a fair sample size to really see how well I have been doing, and by results, it's apparent to me that I have something figured out.



Implied odds are bullshit.
Firstly, I'm not playing that loose all the time to hit a big hand. Sure, it'd be nice, but I know more often than not, I'll get myself in marginal situations which is fine by me. Just as long as it helps me pick up a nice pot and slowly build up a stack to maximize my bigger hands when I get them.

But are you honestly going to tell me what I have done is BS? I'm sincerely shocked that you think this is so improbable. What do you want me to do? Show you why my playstyle works? Maybe post a series of pictures that show my hand stats included in the SNGs that I win or finish ITM?

Then again, the whole point of the thread wasn't to prove myself to the Mason Malmuth of FCP, but if you really would like to believe that my style is impossible to consistently play and win at, then I really wouldn't mind proving you wrong.

in passive games you can see a lot of flops.

Classic.


It seems as though all I ever see you do in your threads is defend your position to the death and take personal offense when people disagree. The most obvious example of this was the thread a few months ago with Smash. I apologize if I misinterpreted something here.

Really, I do try to be civil. I don't give people a hard time for sucking; we all sucked at one time or another. I give people a hard time when they make a mistake and try to convince the tourney forum that it isn't so. Blindly accepting what we have to say at face value is bad for obvious reasons, but staunchly refusing to believe what five other people have said repeatedly (as this OP has done) is pretty brainless.

I've never taken offense to anyone's arguments in saying a play wasn't correct. I'm not going to be passive about it and say I ****ed up. But if someone says it was a bad play all together, of course I'm going to argue against it. Why? Because I want to know it was a bad play, and how am I going to do that if I don't try to justify my play?

Really, sure, I understand that you're so civil and awesome. Thank God you're around to help critique people's plays. But frankly, I don't really care what your opinions of my play are, now, because YOU are the one who has taken this to a personal level the entire time. You can't tell me why the play was bad without giving me a shitty half assed response. I honestly, truthfully, and sincerely believe that any advice you, personally, gave me would be worthless. Everyone else's input had been greatly appreciated. Yours, however, is just complete trash. Thanks.

I didnt say improbable...i said if you see 65% of the flops in low buy in SnGs it is IMPOSSIBLE.

and you will have no credibility here if you make asinine statements like "implied odds are bullshit". Perhaps you dont understand them, but whatever youve "figured out", if it had any validity whatsoever, would be consistent with pot odds/implied odds and cash EV. Unless of course your Wow Thats and have figured out how to beat a rigged game.

Now run off to general where they might actually believe your BS.

Okay MM.

Please give me a name on a site you play alot of SNGs at. I would love to see your credentials. I really doubt you know what you're talking about if you're making plays that are justifiable by "pot odds" and "implied odds". You seem to think implied odds are definite. They are not.

Like I said, give me a name on a site you play, I'd love to see your credentials, and I'll be sure to start working on my assortment of SNG wins and Flop Seen %'s so that the god of poker strategy himself will be silenced.

this is probably the funniest part of the thread to me. you're invoking the visage of mason malmuth as if he were some kind of nl tourney expert.

Hahaha.