tptk + flush draw on the flop

[aim786 0]

Ultimate Bet 1/2 Hold'em (10 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cxPreflop: Hero is CO with A:spade:, T:diamond:. UTG+1 calls, 1 fold, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls.Flop: (9 SB) 7:spade:, T:spade:, 6:spade: (5 players)SB checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 bets, SB folds, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls.Turn: (7.50 BB) 2:heart: (4 players)UTG+1 checks, MP1 checks, Hero bets, MP1 folds, Hero calls.River: (11.50 BB) J:spade: (3 players)UTG+1 checks, Hero bets, Hero calls.Final Pot: 19.50 BBReads: UTG+1 is a rock.Let me point out that this player was new to the table, and I only found out later that he is a rock. Against your average player though, should I be 3-betting on the river?

[Actuary 3]

You should paly this hand this way against any palyer ever at any limit.(at least post flop, preflop looks good too..I'm just more certain post flop about any player, any limit )If I'm reading this correctly, you are behind 89 only?

[aim786 0]

Actuary, you say I should play this hand this exact same way against any player at any limit, but I beg to differ. Let's say your the villain in this situation, and I know that your a good player. Now, if you c/r me on the river, there is only one possible hand you can pull a move like that with, and that would be precisely 98 .In TOP, I remember reading a hand (7 card stud though), where you have quad's showing on the river, and your opponent has 2 parts of a straight flush showing (late position play after your opponent has checked, pg 201). Sklansky argues that betting the quad jacks in either position has 0 expectation, as he knows you have quads, so he will fold everything but raise only when he knows he has you beat.I think one of the major factors in this is also how good your opponent is, as I'm sure in that particular hand I could probably find a bunch of donks who would call with a straight, despite the fact that I'm showing 4 of a kind.Coming back to my hand, if I 3 bet you on the river, I think you will fold literally everything, but only cap with 98 , since you are a good opponent.In conclusion, I think I should have played this the way I did considering the info I had on the player, but if I know I'm up against a good player, I can't see how just callin the c/r on the river isn't correct.

[joball33 0]

Actuary, you say I should play this hand this exact same way against any player at any limit, but I beg to differ.  Let's say your the villain in this situation, and I know that your a good player.  Now, if you c/r me on the river, there is only one possible hand you can pull a move like that with, and that would be precisely 98 .In TOP, I remember reading a hand (7 card stud though), where you have quad's showing on the river, and your opponent has 2 parts of a straight flush showing (late position play after your opponent has checked, pg 201).  Sklansky argues that betting the quad jacks in either position has 0 expectation, as he knows you have quads, so he will fold everything but raise only when he knows he has you beat.I think one of the major factors in this is also how good your opponent is, as I'm sure in that particular hand I could probably find a bunch of donks who would call with a straight, despite the fact that I'm showing 4 of a kind.Coming back to my hand, if I 3 bet you on the river, I think you will fold literally everything, but only cap with 98 , since you are a good opponent.In conclusion, I think I should have played this the way I did considering the info I had on the player, but if I know I'm up against a good player, I can't see how just callin the c/r on the river isn't correct.

I diagree. I play it the same way you did, everytime. You have to remember, these are microlimits, and players will do that with K:spade and sometimes Q . For how rarely you lose the pot to exactly 89:spade:, you more than make up for it in all of the other pots you win. When you say he will fold literally everything when you three bet the river is wrong as well. He is getting 16.5:1 to call. It would be wrong of him to fold many hands. You didn't have a read on him at the time the hand took place, so you can't really give him credit for one exact hand. You figured out later on he was a good player, but that didn't help you at the time the hand transpired. I think you are thinking too much about the results of the hand. You lost the hand one of the very few times you will.

[aim786 0]

joball33:I agree to the fact that at the microlimits this is the way to play the hand. I know I won't run into 89 nearly as often as I'll run into something like K/Q of spades. But, the point I'm trying to make here is if I'm against a good player, my 3-bet on the river is not necessarily +EV.I quote from TOP: "Your chances of having the best hand on the river might be as high as 90% or better, but still you should not necessarily bet."

[Emptyeye 0]

Reading only the first part of Actuary's reply, I have to agree,this is so incredibly standard it isn't funny.Are you really concerned about a SF here? It'll happen, but the K:spade: does this at least as often as the SF.EDIT: Am I the only one who thinks a K:spade: might do this at levels other than microlimit too?

[Mattnxtc 0]

im payin off the 8 9:spade: ...ur ahead here enough to not worry

[lifelessimp 0]

Coming back to my hand, if I 3 bet you on the river, I think you will fold literally everything, but only cap with 98 , since you are a good opponent.

I think almost all players would at least call a 3-bet with the K high flush, a lot of them would at least call w/ a q or j high flush, and I think a K is more likely than 89 . Do you really think that he would lay down a K-high flush? Maybe he assumes that you are a donkey with a crappy flush, and caps w/ a K high flush, even though he is a rock.Only thing that suggests 98 over K/Q/J is that there is no pf raise, making KK, QQ, JJ unlikely.Even with the rock read, I think you have to 3-bet.

[pokerplayer24 0]

im payin off the 8 9:spade: ...ur ahead here enough to not worry

Indeed, dont go around fearing SF's. Especially at .50/1.

[Actuary 3]

aim:ur going to out think yourself out of a lot of money.

[Abbaddabba 0]

Actuary, you say I should play this hand this exact same way against any player at any limit, but I beg to differ. Let's say your the villain in this situation, and I know that your a good player. Now, if you c/r me on the river, there is only one possible hand you can pull a move like that with, and that would be precisely 98

Right. So then fold it to a cap then, right?OK THEN!

In TOP, I remember reading a hand (7 card stud though), where you have quad's showing on the river, and your opponent has 2 parts of a straight flush showing (late position play after your opponent has checked, pg 201). Sklansky argues that betting the quad jacks in either position has 0 expectation, as he knows you have quads, so he will fold everything but raise only when he knows he has you beat.

This doesnt apply when none of your hole cards are exposed.You would need endless data on a player to not 3bet there. It's just so incomprehensibly bad to call the raise with such limited information. There are SO many players out there that act back at you based on the absolute strength of their hand and not the relative strenght. That is to say, if there is 4 to a flush on a paired board and they have one of the suit, the little light in their head that reads "flush" goes off - all the same as it would if the board was uncoordinated and only had 3 of a suit, to which they held two. They're the types who, when the board shows trips, they'll mindlessly raise/3bet/cap their 7's full of twos with pocket deuces, but check/call with top two pair. Why? Because a full house is better than two pair.Plus, he may still think his K is good. He's new to the table, and so you're new to him. He could check/raise that river with a king of spades easily, thinking it has value. Or a queen. Or less. Who ****ing knows? This is .50/1.And there are COUNTLESS other possibilities - all of which are more probable explanations for his action than that he has precisely 1 hand combination that has you beat.

[Guest Zach6668]

Another thing about this hand is that you have been betting and raising the ENTIRE hand. The average .5/1 player will not be able to put you on the A:spade: here, and would just assume that his K:spade: or Q:spade: is good and go nuts on the river. I've certainly seen it enough times to warrant capping this.As a matter of fact, I probably cap this even if my opponent tells me he is holding the straight flush.Zach

[aim786 0]

aim:ur going to out think yourself out of a lot of money.

I believe you when you say that. I come from a chess background, and I'm very used to thinking in the sense of what I'd do if I was the other player. But, in this process I do sometimes give way too much credit to other people. Lol again Actuary, I'm not looking to make "pro folds."And just for the record, I think my poker "instincts" seem to be fine, as I played the hand exactly like anyone here would. It's just when I sit back and start thinking about it, all these things come to mind.I am fairly new to poker, I've only been playing for a little over 6 months, in which time I've read all the big books at least once (SSHE, HPFAP, TOP more than once), and I have all these concepts floating thru my mind. I am sometimes unable to differentiate between which to use where, that's the only problem.

[Actuary 3]

focus on SSHE for this level.Other books can get you in trouble.Or at least understand the intended competition each book asssumes

[telescop 0]

I'm confused (what else is new) did he check raised the turn or the river??? Originally shows turn then OP says something about c/r river???

[Actuary 3]

I'm confused (what else is new)  did he check raised the turn or the river???  Originally shows turn then OP says something about c/r river???

both.

[CoranMoran 0]

Bet, 3bet, call cap, of course.The more interesting question would be how far do we keep pushing if there were no capping limit? Anyone 5 betting?Eventualy, aim's point would kick in.--cnm

[CoranMoran 0]

Bet, 3bet, call cap, of course.The more interesting question would be how far do we keep pushing if there were no capping limit? Anyone 5 betting?Eventualy, aim's point would kick in.--cnm

[Actuary 3]

Bet, 3bet, call cap, of course.The more interesting question would be how far do we keep pushing if there were no capping limit? Anyone 5 betting?Eventualy, aim's point would kick in.--cnm

I'm not giddy when he caps.So I quit there.Unless he thinks I'm a retard.

[aim786 0]

Bet, 3bet, call cap, of course.The more interesting question would be how far do we keep pushing if there were no capping limit? Anyone 5 betting?Eventualy, aim's point would kick in.--cnm

There was a cardplayer article I read some time ago about DN playing some guy at 2k/4k I believe. Daniel flopped quad 2's, slowplayed till the river where his opponent caught king's full on a board 22xxK. There was no cap on the river, and if I remember correctly the author of the article suggested that the guy holding KK should lose about 5 BB on the river before just realizing that he does afterall hold the 2nd nuts.In this particular hand, I was playing 4 tables at once, and bet out on the river after he checked to me (I did'nt see the SF, I just read the board quickly and knew I had the "nuts"). When he check raised, I reraised, and when he capped I looked at the board again, and realized I had the 2nd nuts. I'll look for the cardplayer article later tonight, and post the link.

[aim786 0]

focus on SSHE for this level.Other books can get you in trouble.Or at least understand the intended competition each book asssumes

Yeah, I think that is the key. I should assume I'm againt a player who plays suboptimally until proven otherwise, correct? I usually do it the other way around.

[aim786 0]

Heres the link to the hand, interesting analysis too:http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...4734&m_id=65562

[Shimmering Wang 1]

focus on SSHE for this level.Other books can get you in trouble.Or at least understand the intended competition each book asssumes

Yeah, I think that is the key. I should assume I'm againt a player who plays suboptimally until proven otherwise, correct? I usually do it the other way around.

Yeah, especially at 1/2. I actually read HPFAP first (little admission, I've never read SSHE), and realized after about 2500 hands that while the basics applied, some of the finer points wouldn't start taking until much much laterWang

[Abbaddabba 0]

There was a cardplayer article I read some time ago about DN playing some guy at 2k/4k I believe. Daniel flopped quad 2's, slowplayed till the river where his opponent caught king's full on a board 22xxK. There was no cap on the river, and if I remember correctly the author of the article suggested that the guy holding KK should lose about 5 BB on the river before just realizing that he does afterall hold the 2nd nuts.

I should hope that quad Kings doesnt lose anything on the river.For quad 2's in full ring, on the other hand, it depends on the 5th community card, provided that the two hands that opened came from mid or early position.If the board shows KKQ22, quad twos could easily take it past 5 bets. If the board showed KK322, it's not quite the same. Im sure you can see why.It also depends on the players. A pro against another pro probably isnt losing more than 5 bets on a KK322 board supposing both players came from early to mid position (eliminating K3 from their hand range). That doesnt mean you should be slowing down against anyone you'll ever meet at a .50/1 table for ANY number of bets.

Yeah, especially at 1/2. I actually read HPFAP first (little admission, I've never read SSHE), and realized after about 2500 hands that while the basics applied, some of the finer points wouldn't start taking until much much later

Same here. (i have HPFAP but not SSHE)