Should I Have Known?

[Alpha1494 0]

Actuary, I don't want anyone trying to think I'm giving out weak advice. I think this hand is pretty easy to break down. I think it was pretty clear what the OP was looking at on the turn. There were a lot of red flags on this hand that said fold (smaller than standard raise from early position, 1/3 pot bet in a multiway pot out of position on the flop, check raising the turn). When the stacks are somewhat deep, there is no reason to play such a large pot in a cash game. Things I know for sure:1) I'm not going broke this hand in a cash game, plain and simple.2) My advice was not intended as weak, but rather playing a hand in a manner that maximizes your profit (when ahead) and minimizes your loss (when behind) in a situation where you are unsure as to wether or not you are dominated or dominating.You consider it insanely weak advice, but would you have gone broke this hand like most people would? Everyone thinks its all about playing huge pots all the time which quite frankly it's not. I know that my play is solid enough where I can pick up lots of small pots and profit without playing potentially huge swing hands. So many people feel content playing large pots without the nuts because they had a "good hand." This clearly was the case, but most people don't realize that part of the game is minimizing a loss in a situation like this. I think the OP probably could have folded the turn to be 100% honest. Here's why.Assuming a fullhanded cash game, you must be coming UTG +1 with some premium hands. Most players are not leading out of position in a multiway pot without a hand. The 1/3 pot bet screams AA, KK, or QQ. The check on the turn is kinda fishy, but the check raise pretty much narrows it down to AA when looking at all the factors here. I'm not saying you should never go break with set over set, but in this situation with the stacks as deep as they are here, and with only 16 bucks in the pot after the flop I think its hard to go broke in this specific situation. The OP even made mention to some of the things he thought were weird, he just didn't piece them together right.Alpha

[trystero 0]

In the event your opponent holds KQ, KJ, or QJ, you lose your action if you bet the turn. I wouldn't necessarily "protect" my hand against a draw in this spot because the odds are too likely that they are not making it. Plus, if they miss a draw, they may bluff to try and pick it up. Once again here, you can call just in case it is AA, but you pick up extra chips you wouldn't have if he is indeed bluffing.

You aren't losing any action if your opponent holds the above hands with a FD. He is drawing very live in that case. We have an awesome hand and want villain to commit chips to it.

If your opponent does have AK, AQ, or JJ then I think you should slow down for a few reasons. If they have AK or AQ, they are drawing dead. So check the turn behind them, and let them lead out at the river. If they have JJ you are not getting a call on the turn. Plus, they are drawing too slim to the river , so you are ultimately losing a small pot if they catch up.

Even if he has AK and is drawing dead, he does not know this. He will still call our bet and may try to see a cheap showdown. This is a street to get some more chips in. FWIW I also may play AK/AQ the same way as villain played AA. The c/r advertises a lot more strength than a lead, apparently enough to slow down middle set. Usually though I just call and c/c a safe river.Stacks aren't even that deep here. Hero has just above 80 BB.

[Actuary 3]

Actuary, I don't want anyone trying to think I'm giving out weak advice. I think this hand is pretty easy to break down. I think it was pretty clear what the OP was looking at on the turn. There were a lot of red flags on this hand that said fold (smaller than standard raise from early position, 1/3 pot bet in a multiway pot out of position on the flop, check raising the turn) And posting results

When the stacks are somewhat deep, there is no reason to play such a large pot in a cash game. Things I know for sure:

they aren't deep. They are slightly below ave for online

You consider it insanely weak advice, but would you have gone broke this hand like most people would?

in a $1/2 with 2nd nuts and no draws out and 85 BB's to start...uh...yeah.

Everyone thinks its all about playing huge pots all the time which quite frankly it's not.

right.It's about maximizing EV, regardless of the risk, assuming proper bankroll

Assuming a fullhanded cash game, you must be coming UTG +1 with some premium hands. Most players are not leading out of position in a multiway pot without a hand. The 1/3 pot bet screams AA, KK, or QQ. The check on the turn is kinda fishy, but the check raise pretty much narrows it down to AA when looking at all the factors here. I'm not saying you should never go break with set over set, but in this situation with the stacks as deep as they are here, and with only 16 bucks in the pot after the flop I think its hard to go broke in this specific situation. The OP even made mention to some of the things he thought were weird, he just didn't piece them together right.Alpha

results oriented and not adjusted for a $100NL table, nor card combos, nor pot odds, etc at all. The problem I have with the shove is making it too easy for AK to lay it down, not because he may have 1 of the 3 possible combinations of AA here. I also prefer we raise the flop bet just a tad, too start building the pot. Being so draw light, I think our hand gets too easily defined by flat calling. Plus, later, I"ll want to raise with draws and air too, in position

[mtdesmoines 3]

Actuary, I don't want anyone trying to think I'm giving out weak advice. I think this hand is pretty easy to break down. I think it was pretty clear what the OP was looking at on the turn. There were a lot of red flags on this hand that said fold (smaller than standard raise from early position, 1/3 pot bet in a multiway pot out of position on the flop, check raising the turn). When the stacks are somewhat deep, there is no reason to play such a large pot in a cash game. Things I know for sure:1) I'm not going broke this hand in a cash game, plain and simple.2) My advice was not intended as weak, but rather playing a hand in a manner that maximizes your profit (when ahead) and minimizes your loss (when behind) in a situation where you are unsure as to wether or not you are dominated or dominating.You consider it insanely weak advice, but would you have gone broke this hand like most people would? Everyone thinks its all about playing huge pots all the time which quite frankly it's not. I know that my play is solid enough where I can pick up lots of small pots and profit without playing potentially huge swing hands. So many people feel content playing large pots without the nuts because they had a "good hand." This clearly was the case, but most people don't realize that part of the game is minimizing a loss in a situation like this. I think the OP probably could have folded the turn to be 100% honest. Here's why.Assuming a fullhanded cash game, you must be coming UTG +1 with some premium hands. Most players are not leading out of position in a multiway pot without a hand. The 1/3 pot bet screams AA, KK, or QQ. The check on the turn is kinda fishy, but the check raise pretty much narrows it down to AA when looking at all the factors here. I'm not saying you should never go break with set over set, but in this situation with the stacks as deep as they are here, and with only 16 bucks in the pot after the flop I think its hard to go broke in this specific situation. The OP even made mention to some of the things he thought were weird, he just didn't piece them together right.Alpha

This is an uncordinated board. THESE HANDS in particular play MUCH DIFFERENTLY than a non-nut flush or sucker straight. At the turn, there is one hand on God's green earth that beats us, and, further, by one that's been horribly misplayed if the villain has it. That means you stick the ****ing money in and get paid by AK, AQ or two pair or bottom set or a draw all day long. I can't imagine get popped on that turn and folding, only to see some bluff monkey turn over pocket fives, a draw, or some such garbage.

[Actuary 3]

1) I'm not going broke this hand in a cash game, plain and simple.

how much of a roll would you have to play $100NL ( $1 bb)

[Alpha1494 0]

This is an uncordinated board. THESE HANDS in particular play MUCH DIFFERENTLY than a non-nut flush or sucker straight. At the turn, there is one hand on God's green earth that beats us, and, further, by one that's been horribly misplayed if the villain has it. That means you stick the ****ing money in and get paid by AK, AQ or two pair or bottom set or a draw all day long. I can't imagine get popped on that turn and folding, only to see some bluff monkey turn over pocket fives, a draw, or some such garbage.

You're right, these two hands play much differently than most others. The original raiser played this hand in a very tricky manner. IMO, there were very clear indicators that he had a very very large hand. Had the OR played this hand in a different manner, I'm probably going broke. But with the way the OR played the hand, I think it is much easier to not lose as much money as the OP did on this hand. The original poster made light of the fact that the OR in this pot played it weird. Whenever I see someone playing goofy like this when their not tilting, it sends up red flags. If I was in the OP seat and got the turn checked to me after the A hit, I'm getting a bit concerned about my hand. If I bet and got popped, I'm not folding, but I'm not likely to shove all my chips in. The turn check raise was yet another goofy warning sign that something was suspicious. Honestly, I'm likely to check the turn, and flat call the river on this PARTICULAR HAND.If the OR bet 2/3 of pot on the flop, I go broke because I'm likely to make a large raise. If he continues on the turn, I'm probably raising here and once again going broke. But this is exactly how the hand DID NOT turn out. The only reason I'm not going broke this hand is because of how the OR played it out. I think I'm going to get sick and tired of analyzing this ONE hand. I think I'm actually getting sick and tired of hearing every say how they go broke with a set on a dry board. Most people do (I've done it many a time before), but this is one of the few exceptions where I'm confident you can get out of this spot and lose the minimum (once again, done this before). Even if you bet the turn, and call the raise. You can still flat call the river in this spot (especially because you don't have the nuts). You still lose a decent chunk of change, but I don't think you go broke. If the OR overbets the river and moves in, then that may be different (but in this particular hand, a river overbet may actually get you off this hand, but at this limit not likely).So what's next? Are we gonna start talking about how KK always has to go broke to AA preflop. I'm sure that one will be just as riveting as this one has been........Alpha

[Actuary 3]

Alpha,why do you keep using the phrase going broke?Can't we reload.We only started with 85bb's and have a monster hand.You are really risk adverse and +eV adverse apparently.Feel free not to comment anymore.You are so results oriented that this one thread will forvever serve as my example to why posting results is bad.

[navybuttons 15]

this thread has been silly from the gate. (people not getting sarcasm)this small pot theory of Alpha's is just bad advice.one pair, arkansas straight, weak two pair, ace high: small pot.set, nut flush, straight, big two pair on uncordinated flop, full house: BIG POT.i think some people could avoid going broke on this hand but it would take much deeper stacks and a really strong read.villian's check on the turn could easily be QQ or KK.

[Alpha1494 0]

Alpha,why do you keep using the phrase going broke?Can't we reload.We only started with 85bb's and have a monster hand.

Yes, we can absolutely reload. I guess I used the term "going broke" a little to liberally. We can aboslutely reload, there is never an issue or concern with that. But 85BB offers us plenty of room to play. Just think back, we have $6 invested in a $16 pot going into the turn. That is not a lot of investment at this point. I know that a lot of people don't think that 85BB is a lot in a cash game like this, but I myself am very comfotable with this. A lot of my assessment for this hand just has to do with my overall style of play. I play small ball, not homerun ball. I would be very comfortable playing this pot a little more passively than most people probably would. If you want to be critical of my passive play in a pot like this that's fine, I don't care. I do play a lot of hands and a lot of small ball. I win lots of small pots, and I lose some small pots. And when I do get all my chips in a big pot, I've got the nuts. This has been my style for many years now, and I've been very very happy with how its worked out for me.Alpha

[Actuary 3]

This has been my style for many years now, and I've been very very happy with how its worked out for me.Alpha

I don't doubt you make money playing this way.As you know, there are so many aweful players that you can make money with little risk. As Navy pointed out though, small ball is for small hands. Waiting for the stone nuts is giving up a lot of money for little extra risk.Also, how much of that 16 in pot is ours, is irrelvant, but you know that, right ?It's so much more debateable to discuss that we are losing value against QQ/KK and AK/AQ here by shoving, than to ever think folding is correct. We may have overplayed and lost value. And I know you pointed that out. But you come at it from a scred point, not an assumption that we have the best hand. Checking behind on turn is just gross. We should be building a pot.We win this hand >45% of the time.*************Alpha,you're pulling my leg, yes?Beating me at my own game?kudos.

[navybuttons 15]

I collect money. maybe you've heard of it?

[Alpha1494 0]

I really am curious as to how many times I am going to have to say this. In this one particular hand (just this hand, not every other hand when I make second set, or the second nuts), I'm playing small. I am comfortable playing this ONE hand small on the notion that I am fairly confident that I have been sucked out on. If I honest to God thought my opponent had AK, AQ, or a smaller set believe me. I am making this guy pay dearly for it. But in this one particular hand (has anyone figured out that we are talking about just this one posted hand yet?), I am comfortable winning just a small pot if I do have the best hand (because there are many indicators that I don't). My overall style is very aggressive because I play a lot of hands (both cash games and tournaments), but it is still small ball. This allows me to do something like this: win small pot, win small pot, lose small pot, win small pot, lose small pot, win BIG pot. I win this big pot not because I'm sitting around waiting for the nuts, its because I've played so many hands people tend to pay me off when I have a monster because they don't think I have anything. I use the term "passive" in my betting because I'm not reraising a lot of pots. If I'm in position with AA and looking at a raise, I'm probably flat calling. If I'm first in, I'm clearly raising. If not, I'm likely calling (but there are definately circumstances when I will reraise, but this is not my MO). This keeps me unpredicatble. My style of play very much resembles somone like Gavin Smith, but not nearly as maniacal.So I'm going to say it one more time, and hopefully everyone will get it. I'm not folding a set in this spot. But once that A hits the turn, I'm backing off a bit because my opponent on this one hand has played it so funny. This will be one of the exceptions where I play a monster hand passively. I guess I'm just not doing a good job of explaining because I think it is very clear that no one gets what I'm trying to say.

It's so much more debateable to discuss that we are losing value against QQ/KK and AK/AQ here by shoving, than to ever think folding is correct. We may have overplayed and lost value. And I know you pointed that out. But you come at it from a scred point, not an assumption that we have the best hand. Checking behind on turn is just gross. We should be building a pot.

I still think checking behind on the turn is okay (only because of my take on this one situation, otherwise its not), but shoving on the turn is absolutely not okay. You are absolutely right, we are losing value against KK/QQ/JJ and quite frankly against AK or AQ because at this point, only a small selection of hands can call (AA,77,44, and any combination of Aces up). I think these are the least likely holdings of the OR in this pot, maybe with the exception of 77.Alpha

[Actuary 3]

I guess I'm just not doing a good job of explaining because I think it is very clear that no one gets what I'm trying to say.AlphaThis is getting abusive.

I get it.You are just losing too much value playing it passively.Nothing I"ve said implies I don't get you.Now, are you just joking?And I still think results influenced you.

[Alpha1494 0]

You are just losing too much value playing it passively.

I understand I'm losing potential value in this hand by playing it passively. But this is just one hand when I'm going on my read. 95% of the times I'm taking this hand and running, and I know that in general it is poor to lose expected value in a hand like this especially when there is only one hand that beat us, but my read of the situation tells me that's what I'm looking at.I know I will be forever hated for wanting to play one pot where I am knowingly losing expected value, but this is simply a feel play. I'm not one to stray from my instincts in a situation like this. I am comortable playing a pot every once in a while where I am losing value because I feel like I really may be beat by one of the few hands that beats me.

[Actuary 3]

I understand I'm losing potential value in this hand by playing it passively. But this is just one hand when I'm going on my read.

you're going on results, too.I won't hate you.

[Alpha1494 0]

I know you think I'm going on results, and that's okay. I'm glad you don't hate me for it. I've had a lot of experience with this exact same hand where the turn card buries you and you may not relize it. When I first started playing 5 years ago, I got killed in this spot my fair share of times. But I've seen this type of play before and I'm sure I will again. I do wish the OP did not post the results to the hand. I'm confident that I would have given the same replies that I did. I'm goign with my experience on this one. And as much as I know it probably pains you to hear this, I'm still playing this one particular pot the same way. I've just seen this goofy play way too much. People try to play hands like this way to often and ultimately it hurts them. Not me. But yes, results are ridiculously unnecessary in the strat forum.

[Actuary 3]

you are a thoughtful poster based on this and other recent threads.why have you been hiding so long?and.... so you weren't pulling my leg here?

[Alpha1494 0]

Yeah, I'm not really sure why I've been hiding so long. If you notice, I've actually been a member since before you. I guess I just lurked the forums for advice and information for a such a long time before I realized that I should actually be doing a lot of posting. So yes, you will be seeing a lot of me now wether you like it or not. But unfortunately, this will be my last post for at least a couple of hours because I've been up for like 40 straight hours and I am in desperate need of sleep. I have had 4 exams and an oral case presentation in the last 48 hours (and I'm in my 5th year of Pharmacy school so it's not been easy). I'm actually confident that I am starting to hallucinate. So I will catch all of you later so I can dish out shitty weak advice and poor insight.I don't know....Am I pulling your leg now.............Alpha

[Actuary 3]

I'm actually confident that I am starting to hallucinate.

that would explain it