Trip Q's In A 3 Way Pot

[CobaltBlue 662]

Worse, dont limp trash in SB and get passive on a great flop. Thats just mathematics gone really wrong.

"Great" is entirely subjective. I don't view this as a "great" flop. I view this as a WA/WB flop. If we have the best hand, we have the best hand by a mile and not much to fear. If we have the worse hand, we have the worse hand by quite a bit and don't want to get a bunch of money in.I'd like to point out that BoostedJ and I are mostly in agreement. :icon_biggrin:Also, you guys know that we can flop a straight with this hand, right? We can win a good pot on a JT9 board outside of someone having KQ. Additionally, everyone keeps saying we're not going to be happy if we flop trips...we're plenty happy if we flop trip 8s.

[LousyPairOfQueens 0]

I'm new to this converter deal, how would you have played the Q8?PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $50 BB (9 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)MP1 ($925)MP2 ($4569)MP3 ($15524.50)CO ($7791)Button ($9538)Hero ($12126)BB ($5075)UTG ($2272)UTG+1 ($5593)Preflop: Hero is SB with 8, Q. UTG calls $50, 5 folds, Button calls $50, Hero completes, BB checks.Flop: ($200) Q, Q, 4(4 players)Hero checks, BB checks, UTG checks, Button bets $150, Hero calls $150, BB folds, UTG calls $150.Turn: ($650) T(3 players)Hero checks, UTG checks, Button checks.River: ($650) J(3 players)Hero checks, UTG bets $400, Button folds, Hero folds.Final Pot: $650

OK.. Just curious...Why is everybody discounting the likelihood AKs lucking into a straight at the end?From looking above, not knowing how long the game was going on, any recent beats maybe laid upon the UTG, etc. He could have limped in UTG, was disgusted by the flop, but knew the button would try to buy the pot, so he hung in there figuring maybe he'd spike the Ace or something. Of course, he'd check the turn to the button. When the river came up and he completed his hand (beating all but a FH), he bet out a value bet. All that being said, DN betting or (better) raising the flop probably would have pushed him out. But, it likely would have sent the Button packing, too, with the effect being, basically, stealing the blinds. So there wasn't likely to be more money made by checking everything down anyway. Early position sucks don't it.Noteworthy, I usually play for low stakes, so should I assume from this conversation that people at the $25/$50 can't occasionally play something badly and luck into a made hand?

[Acid_Knight 2]

OK.. Just curious...Why is everybody discounting the likelihood AKs lucking into a straight at the end?

Flop action? Overcalling with AK when you're likely drawing almost dead is pretty stupid.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Take this for what it's worth: You aren't going to find any of the most successful no limit players folding Q8 off from the SB. Not Patrick Antonius, not Phil Ivey, etc. I can understand the idea that for lesser players it may be the more profitable play, but the goal should be to make a better play as you improve. The better play is to complete from the SB, no question about it.

[flashinglight 0]

Take this for what it's worth: You aren't going to find any of the most successful no limit players folding Q8 off from the SB. Not Patrick Antonius, not Phil Ivey, etc. I can understand the idea that for lesser players it may be the more profitable play, but the goal should be to make a better play as you improve. The better play is to complete from the SB, no question about it.

I think given the fact, that you could fold a hand like this, and not even really think twice about it, shows why you can play a hand like Q8...most ppl that are arguing about not completing it from the SB, are too afraid to make a big hand, that they cant fold, where they are beat....in which case, they ultimately pay off the value bet....which leaves them with this, "If I had folded pf, i never would of gotten into this situation, feeling"......most ppl are looking to make some sort of hand with it.....you are looking to make a hand as well, but also for the steal situation on ragged flops (as you said), etc., thus i completely understand what your saying.....i just think it depends on the individual player.....for every LAG professional you give me, I could give you the same amount of TAG professionals, that would lay that down pf.......Sbrugby, Green Plastic, even prolly Jennifer H. (LOL @ YOU VALUE BETTING THE 5 high flush draw vs her....on PAD)....i LOVED IT

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Harman would never fold that hand in a million years.

[dawsboi 0]

Harman would never fold that hand in a million years.

Well, Harman mightve won the pot

[Royal_Tour 0]

Harman would never fold that hand in a million years.

I'm on the "completeQ8 in sb"wagon. i said so right from the start of this threadnow, anyways, to the real issue at hand.who was UTG, and did u guys talk about the hand after?any results?

[flashinglight 0]

Harman would never fold that hand in a million years.

lol ya that was a dumb example on my part lol...but i've seen her fold better, in similiar situations...i might have to do a lil research and re-watch HSP season 3 and 4......i swear i saw a couple hands where she folded better holdings then this from the SB....but im sure post-flop...she's able to dissect it and fold....w/o second guessin herself....FROM FULL-TILT POKER CHAT ARCHIVE.QUESTION FROM HitRockBottom1: what is the best strategy for NLH cash games?ANSWER FROM Jennifer Harman: I would say to play pretty tight in early positions and play more hands in the later positions.

[Trillske 0]

I think given the fact, that you could fold a hand like this, and not even really think twice about it, shows why you can play a hand like Q8...most ppl that are arguing about not completing it from the SB, are too afraid to make a big hand, that they cant fold, where they are beat....in which case, they ultimately pay off the value bet....which leaves them with this, "If I had folded pf, i never would of gotten into this situation, feeling"......most ppl are looking to make some sort of hand with it.....you are looking to make a hand as well, but also for the steal situation on ragged flops (as you said), etc., thus i completely understand what your saying.....i just think it depends on the individual player.....for every LAG professional you give me, I could give you the same amount of TAG professionals, that would lay that down pf.......Sbrugby, Green Plastic, even prolly Jennifer H. (LOL @ YOU VALUE BETTING THE 5 high flush draw vs her....on PAD)....i LOVED IT

Actually, when I was a bit more fresh I´d complete that SB every time. I kept reading that I shouldnt, but thought I was getting too good value to fold. Now a days I would only do it if im up against really bad players. If someone is likely to give me his stack with QK on Q8x, then yes, lets see a flop. But then, if im up against really bad players I´d often even raise it concidering I woudnt respect the limpers and I would like to enhance my metagame in the process. My problem is not that I coudnt lay down a monster. I´ve thrown away far better hands than that whenever my opponents range dictates it.My main problem with the hand isnt really completing SB either. It is the passive aproach. I mean; complete SB with "trash", check/call your floped trips, check/check the turn, and check/fold the river. If we think the flop is good, we want more money in there. If we think its bad, we dont. Its not like we are going to pay potsize to chase a 3-outer. And in either case, if we arent going to get payed of by a worse hand, what is Q8o doing in our range OOP? It doesnt add up. I know DN is a great player, but I dont think that justifice such a passive aproach.EDIT:I might add that about a year ago I´d play the hand pretty much exactly like DN did, and I cant for sure say its "wrong" as I did make money back then as well. But all in all, it feels like a bad idea.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Take this for what it's worth: You aren't going to find any of the most successful no limit players folding Q8 off from the SB. Not Patrick Antonius, not Phil Ivey, etc. I can understand the idea that for lesser players it may be the more profitable play, but the goal should be to make a better play as you improve. The better play is to complete from the SB, no question about it.

They could all be leaking some very small amount with this play and not notice it during their lifetimes. People don't rise to the top level who don't have a bit of hubris about their skill. That doesn't make that hubris right in all situations.As a little joke on me, I have to confess I completed with J7o while typing my first post on this subject without really paying attention.

[beggar04 0]

Newbie alert!I'm sure I'll deserve all kinds of crap for this question, but since I'm bad and want to get better... Why don't we lead the flop here?I think completing the SB is a no-brainer (but I suck, so what do I know). I understand that this isn't a dream flop, because QJ, QK, Q10, 44 (all very likely limp hands IMO) have us crushed. Are we worried about getting called and getting no information and setting ourselves up for more losses later?Similarly after the check around on the turn, would we ever lead the river? (I know the board is even more dangerous now, but it just seems like we're setting up someone behind us to steal this too easily).

[David_Nicoson 1]

I'm sure I'll deserve all kinds of crap for this question, but since I'm bad and want to get better... Why don't we lead the flop here?

Checking the flop giving the button a chance to bluff, which apparently he does. (Both the other villains can't have queens here. We could theoretically be up against a queen a full house, but that's pretty unlikely.)It's most likely that no one has a pair other than the one on the board, so if we bet out it's hard for a hand that we beat to call.

[beggar04 0]

Checking the flop giving the button a chance to bluff, which apparently he does. (Both the other villains can't have queens here. We could theoretically be up against a queen a full house, but that's pretty unlikely.)

Yeah, that makes sense.

It's most likely that no one has a pair other than the one on the board, so if we bet out it's hard for a hand that we beat to call.

If we're not going to call this down to the end, don't we want everyone else to fold here? The weakness we've displayed all along just invites people to steal later (doesn't it?)Isn't it better to win a small pot here than to lose a bigger pot later? (be gentle, remember I suck and am trying to learn...)

[David_Nicoson 1]

If we're not going to call this down to the end, don't we want everyone else to fold here? The weakness we've displayed all along just invites people to steal later (doesn't it?)Isn't it better to win a small pot here than to lose a bigger pot later? (be gentle, remember I suck and am trying to learn...)

Yeah, it's better to win a small pot. Here's the way I (and I believe Daniel also) think about the hand. There are only two possibilities:1) We're way ahead.2) We're way behind.If we're way ahead and we lead the flop, they probably both fold. We made the minimum after the flop. If we check and call, check the turn, and then call or make a bet on the river, we can make money on two streets.If we're way behind, we lose money on every bet we make.So in either possibility, it's better to play the hand pretty slow. We can still call the river if we think we're ahead (even a small fraction of the time). We learned new information by the action on the flop that we're unlikely to be ahead. The action on the flop didn't cause us to be behind; we just learned from it.

[beggar04 0]

Thanks David, I think I understand. The best thing that can happen is everyone folds, the worst is that everyone calls and we have the same or less info as check/call?Now let me ask this... What did we learn on the flop and turn? Is there any card that comes on the river that would be ok for us to lead or call?

[David_Nicoson 1]

Thanks David, I think I understand. The best thing that can happen is everyone folds, the worst is that everyone calls and we have the same or less info as check/call?Now let me ask this... What did we learn on the flop and turn? Is there any card that comes on the river that would be ok for us to lead or call?

I don't think we anticipated this, but when UTG calls after we've already called; it's pretty clear that he has a big hand. The button can clearly be stealing or value betting something pretty weak, but our call looks extremely strong. His call really says he can beat a lot of queens.

[angusomalley 0]

You guys throw away Q8os in the small blind?That's news to me. I dont' play online for cash, but I play at various B&M's in Los Angeles. If you're that concerned to call $25 into that pot with Q8os then maybe you should play lower stakes or something. Daniel is right. One reason I look up to players like Daniel is their ability to play these hands, see a flop, and outplay their opponents.... Also @ Daniel: your television personality suggests you can be a POW sometimes with hands/boards like this. So, great fold - likely this is a value bet with any number of hands that have you beat, straight, or boat, or higher Q's. I read an article once written by Todd Brunson about players like this, mirror players. Limp, Call, Check, Bet....smells like a trap with that board. Your hand is probably the exact hand he was hoping someone would have.UTG played well if he turned a boat too. Someone said he could have had AK, true, or even 89! It's more likely though that he checked to the button on the turn hoping someone else would make a hand like that....or letting the button hang himself. One thing I would wonder is why you check that flop, and not bet. I would make maybe a 1/2 pot size bet there to feel out the other queens (yes out of position I guess?). The only trouble you get in is with those mirror players who smooth call you, which means you probably have to check the turn and fold to a large bet? Either way you lose the same, but have more control. But there's a reason I am just an amateur and maybe these minor difference in play are it....

[Acid_Knight 2]

If you're that concerned to call $25 into that pot with Q8os then maybe you should play lower stakes or something.

The assertion that you should muck Q8o in the SB has nothing to do with fear of losing half a bet or what $25 or whatever 1SB means to us financially. It has to do with the belief that it's better to muck the hand because in the long run, we will not show an average profit of >1SB by playing this hand.

[CobaltBlue 662]

I know DN is a great player, but I dont think that justifice such a passive aproach.

Being a great player, Daniel understands that there are times for aggressiveness and times for passiveness. This is one of those appropriate times for passiveness. You can't just stop at the maxim that all great players are aggressive. Yes, aggression is a major tool and will outweigh the passivity. That said, a player needs to have a wide range of tools to approach a wide range of hands. Our goal is to maximize our value regardless of how that characterizes our action.

[flashinglight 0]

The assertion that you should muck Q8o in the SB has nothing to do with fear of losing half a bet or what $25 or whatever 1SB means to us financially. It has to do with the belief that it's better to muck the hand because in the long run, we will not show an average profit of >1SB by playing this hand.

I couldn't of said it better....this is exactly what I was trying to explain to DN

[Tal 0]

Here's the way I (and I believe Daniel also) think about the hand. There are only two possibilities:1) We're way ahead.2) We're way behind.If we're way ahead and we lead the flop, they probably both fold. We made the minimum after the flop. If we check and call, check the turn, and then call or make a bet on the river, we can make money on two streets.If we're way behind, we lose money on every bet we make.So in either possibility, it's better to play the hand pretty slow. We can still call the river if we think we're ahead (even a small fraction of the time). We learned new information by the action on the flop that we're unlikely to be ahead. The action on the flop didn't cause us to be behind; we just learned from it.

Indeed, the way Daniel played the hand limited the amount he lost. Clearly anyone who doesn't havea) an over-pair to the boardB) a queenc) two 4s has no business in that pot. If UTG has a queen, its very probable that his kicker is higher than Daniel's because Daniel's kicker is the lowest possible that it still makes sense to call the blinds with. Obviously, if UTB has two 4s, Daniel's had it. The only hand Daniel can beat is the over-pair. After the Button bet 150, I would be inclined to raise to 400, just to see where I'm at in the hand. If I get calls, I know I'm beat. From a long term perspective, Daniel's play is correct, because he lost the least possible, although he clearly didn't WIN anything this way. I think the way you'd play this hand greatly depends on what kind of player you are.Daniel, if this hand occured in a tournament, rather than a cash game, would you have played it the same way?

[CobaltBlue 662]

Daniel, if this hand occured in a tournament, rather than a cash game, would you have played it the same way?

Probably depends a lot on stack sizes (and stage of the tournament).

[Acid_Knight 2]

I couldn't of said it better....this is exactly what I was trying to explain to DN

Daniel knows what people are saying. He's just making the reasonable assertion that he (and other players of a high enough skill level) can play hands this weak from the SB and still show a profit. I question that assertion only for the reason that he might not have the actual data to back it up, but that's kind of a silly point to make because without software like pokertracker, it's basically impossible to figure these things out anyway.For anyone who's not at or very near the level of DN and certain other high stakes professional players (with regards to overall skill), I can probably say with a high degree of certainty that completing the SB with Q8o is going to be a losing play for you in the long run.

[Trillske 0]

Being a great player, Daniel understands that there are times for aggressiveness and times for passiveness. This is one of those appropriate times for passiveness. You can't just stop at the maxim that all great players are aggressive. Yes, aggression is a major tool and will outweigh the passivity. That said, a player needs to have a wide range of tools to approach a wide range of hands. Our goal is to maximize our value regardless of how that characterizes our action.

But the question is: was this a good time to get passive? I think not. First, because DN is such a good player, its easy to justify his every move with "things that only makes sense to him". But thats simply not right. Every player makes bad plays. DN is probably the player who I´ve learned the most from and who I respect the most, but I have seen him make bad plays none the less. This hand isnt a huge misstake, but I still disagree with the apoach. So, we are going to limp SB with Q8o. Then, what do we expect? Do we expect to win the money already in the middle >1/7 times? Might be fair odds, but im actually not sure. BB will often raise, and we loose our 0.5BB without seeing a flopp. Even if he is a passive noob he might wake up with AK/AQ or anything else he simple wont check. Most of the times we will flop nothing. And, judging from the outcome on this particulair hand, we dont really expect our opponents to bluff thus we will fold and loose our 0.5BB every time someone bets and we dont hit a monster. Do we expect to hit a monster? What is a monster? Is QQ4 a monster? Because if its a monster, we cant just check/call potsize,check/check/,check/fold if we want our make our Q8o SB play pay off. Heres another thought: what if 9TJ hits? Now thats a dream flop for this hand. Will we get payed by 78? Probably. Will we pay QK? Definatly. We are out of position and probably go brooke. Sure, there´s 99/TT/JJ. But: 1) Its highly unlikely 2) Its not very far behind.(stupid comment ----------->)On the one hand, we obviously dont think people are going to pay us when we hit QQ4 if we dont go passive. We give them that respect, otherwise we woudnt play it passive. If its a crowd of loose players, theyde call an opening bet and sometimes even a raise with a pocket above 4, or maybe even call with something like A4s, and thats a fair range. On the other hand, we dont think they are willing to bluff when they sense weakness. We dont give them that respect. That tells me two things:- We havent really decided whether we play against a bunch of fishes or a bunch of pros - Why on earth do we play call/check-poker if we dont expect people to take a stab at the pot, while our draw is as low as 4 outs?(<-----------------------------)Yes, DN is exceptional on reading weekness, and might steal some pots after limping SB. But he did call a decent bet on the flop and was pretty lost in the hand, so its not an automatic +EV move to just to be in the pot even if your name is DN. We could fold the flop, meaning we could expect something even better. But then, once again, I dont think the odds we get makes it worth it. All in all, I dont know why we limp SB in a crowd we havent really pegged. I dont know why we call the flop and then get passive, only to fold when someone "finaly" takes a stab.EDIT:While I still hold true to the "fold SB!!!" part, I like to back away from the bashing of the particulair hand. I´ll blame the fact that im sick, and mixed up while typing. Checked the hand again, and of course noticed the riverbettor act behind him on the flop, meaning DN might have pretty much given up on the hand on that moment. But still, that goes to show just how bad of a position SB is.