Jump to content


llhe chipspewing? aug 3rd


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 Sojuphan

Sojuphan

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 04 August 2005 - 09:33 AM

Just a take on something previously posted that low limit hold 'em is somehow remarkably different than higher limit hold 'em because low limit hold 'em is about value betting and pot odds, and that higher limit hold 'em is more about creativity . . .I think too much is made by many posters about the differences between low limit and higher limit play. The skills applicable in low limit games are equally applicable in higher limit games. A solid foundation in understanding pot odds and value betting is critical to success at all levels of poker.Now as to the hand posted, approximately 50% of the time at least one overcard to the JJs will come on the flop. With a good but not great hand, why not just limp and see the flop and take minimum damage if your JJ is no good? On the other hand if the flop comes all unders, or you hit a set, you can ram and jam. Also consider, at lower limits if people have already limped in many also call one raise. So on the flop, someone can have almost any kind of draw and be justified in calling. I just see the JJ Sb raise as a high risk/low upside play.

#22 DLizzle

DLizzle

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 238 posts

Posted 04 August 2005 - 03:41 PM

Daniel is definetly right about the bet with JJ from the SB being a bad play. That's the first thing that stood out about the first post, the guy was like raise with JJ, that's a given. No, no it's not. JJ is not often going to hold up, especially in a low limit game, so the raise is not profitable at all. The only thing the raise does is gives away your hand's strength. I always wondered what those SB BB raisers are thinking. Anyway as for the rest of the hand, its either a check fold. (not my choice), or a bet on the flop, bet on the turn and maybe a bet on the river if you're feeling it. (provided he's just calling). At worst your going to get called down with a weak ace, or you get value from a lower pair.

#23 brian67

brian67

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 678 posts
  • Location:San Jose
  • Interests:poker, sports, and cars

Posted 04 August 2005 - 10:15 PM

I definately agree with DN on this one (surprise surprise), the problem with micro limits is that you can make tons of mistakes and still be profitable as long as you make less mistakes than the other players at the table. You could say that that's not a problem, but that's only true if you plan on playing there forever. If you do plan on moving up in limits it's best to play the best poker you can at all times.

#24 Karmahoos

Karmahoos

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 04 August 2005 - 11:09 PM

I am very surprised to see the majority of you saying not to raise jj in a 5-way pot at micro-limits. Very, very surprised. Almost as surprising as almost everyone seeing my checkraise as some sort of bluff instead of hand protection.

#25 CobaltBlue

CobaltBlue

    The Outlier

  • Members
  • 10,419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Royal Palm Beach, FL
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hold 'Em, Crazy Pineapple, 2-7 TD

Posted 05 August 2005 - 03:04 AM

DLizzle said:

JJ is not often going to hold up, especially in a low limit game, so the raise is not profitable at all. The only thing the raise does is gives away your hand's strength.
:?JJ is going to hold up around 40% of the time against four random hands (according to PokerStove). I'd consider that to be fairly "often". Granted, your opponents hands might be slightly better than "random", but no one's raised...so they're not likely to be all that good. Giving them some random but specific marginal hands, you're still at around 25% (so you have equity).And "giving away your hand's strength"? Do you just complete with aces, kings, or queens? I mean, you might give away your hand strength with a raise.I think arguments can be made for just completing and for raising. I think I'm raising JJ a majority of the time out of the small blind. A hand that I'm much more fuzzy on from the SB is AQos.

#26 TheMathProf

TheMathProf

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 571 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Favorite Poker Game:SNGs, MTTs, low-limit cash

Posted 05 August 2005 - 06:25 AM

My own experience with the Poker Stars .25/.50 is this: :club: A ton of people limp with Ax, especially when it's suited. :D A ton of people limp in with suited connectors (or non-suited connectors for that matter. :D A ton of people limp in with any kind of low to medium pocket pair. :D Some people limp in with absolute crap.The one thing that you'll notice is not on that list is that there are fewer people who limp with Kx unless it is two broadway cards, and almost nobody limps with Qx unles it's QJ or QT.Now maybe it's a bad habit, but given the kinds of preflop hands that I've noticed people generally limping with, I tend to raise with JJ out of the SB.If an Ace pops out on the flop, and it's bet into me, I'm out of there. If it's checked to me, I'll put out a feeler, but I'm gone to a raise.On the other hand, if a King or a Queen pops out, there's a much, much stronger possibility that the jacks are still good. I'd raise the flop (just once), call a single re-raise, and fold the turn unimproved.The other flops are those so-called good flops for jacks (for the most part) and should be straightforward.I'm not necessarily saying that this is the "textbook" and "correct" play, but it seems to match up pretty well with the kinds of hands that you'll see most of the .25/.50 opposition playing.

#27 TheCinciKid

TheCinciKid

    Micro Limit Superstar

  • Members
  • 3,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the home of world famous fried chicken
  • Interests:Poker, Baseball, Poker, The Bengals, Poker, Golf, Poker, Movies, Poker, Fantasy Sports, and a little Politics and Current Events.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Limit Hold'em

Posted 07 August 2005 - 09:26 AM

CobaltBlue said:

DLizzle said:

JJ is not often going to hold up, especially in a low limit game, so the raise is not profitable at all. The only thing the raise does is gives away your hand's strength.
:?JJ is going to hold up around 40% of the time against four random hands (according to PokerStove). I'd consider that to be fairly "often". Granted, your opponents hands might be slightly better than "random", but no one's raised...so they're not likely to be all that good. Giving them some random but specific marginal hands, you're still at around 25% (so you have equity).And "giving away your hand's strength"? Do you just complete with aces, kings, or queens? I mean, you might give away your hand strength with a raise.I think arguments can be made for just completing and for raising. I think I'm raising JJ a majority of the time out of the small blind. A hand that I'm much more fuzzy on from the SB is AQos.
I just want to reiterate what Cobalt is saying here because I think it's important. SSHE, which is essentially the bible for these low-limit loose/passive games advocates raising JJ from the SB against any number of limpers, presumably even in a family pot. From my understanding, the reason for this is simple. In a small-stakes game, you're not trying to play tricky or creative. Your opponents aren't paying enough attention and will call down with weak hands too often for tricky play to work. The idea is to play straightforward and push edges. If there are 5 people in the pot, JJ simply needs to win more than it's share of 20% to be a profitable hand. As you mentioned, it's going to win significantly more often than that against 4 random limpers. Therefore, you raise not to push people out of the hand, but for value. Those limpers are priced into calling your raise with weaker hands than yours. Therefore, your hand will win more than it's share of a pot with 10 small bets as opposed to winning more than it's share of a pot with 5 small bets if you just complete.The only reason that I can see for limping here is if you expect to be able to extract more bets on later streets than you can on the flop, and without attempting to work thru scenarios as I sit here, I don't see that as working out a significant enough percentage of the time to justify not pushing your edge before the flop. Keeping in mind that Small Stakes Hold'em is a different from higher stakes games, this is the correct play. In a higher stakes game more emphasis may be put on being creative, and those who have only played small stakes will probably have to significantly adjust their game in order to beat a higher stakes game, but until you get to that point you need to keep pushing every edge you have at those low-limit tables.
"If you're too careful, your whole life can become a ****in' grind." - Mike McDermott, Rounders

my (resurrected) poker blog:
http://cincikid.blogspot.com

#28 Rocketwadster

Rocketwadster

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 3,816 posts
  • Location:Cambridge, Ontario
  • Interests:Gambling, Sports

Posted 13 August 2005 - 10:17 AM

I don't like the pre-flop raise with your jacks there. You are making a big pot with a fairly good hand, but not one that plays well against multiple opponents. If you have jack ten suited, great raise, but no with the jacks IMO.That being said though, the check-raise on the flop was great, as you are now making it 2 bets cold for anyone who wants to continue, which make sit a little tougher for anyone on a draw to continue. 8)

#29 Ebonwoulfe

Ebonwoulfe

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 24 August 2005 - 12:53 PM

Alright I didn't read the thread and am probably talking to nobody since this is sort of an old topic.I think you played the hand just dandy. The button is probably raising any good A here preflop, and he might be playing some sort of suited connector or something with all the money in. These factors make it highly likely that he doesn't have the A, but instead has a flush draw or midpair. As well, you might have knocked someone off a crappy A with the check-raise (not really likely, but it could have happened).You bet the turn. This could be debatable that you would want to check-call the turn to try to induce a bluff, but since you followed the check-raise the flop line, you have to bet the turn. He's either calling with a weak A (bad for you), or calling with the flush draw or midpair. If he has a strong A, he will likely raise the turn, so you can reasonably fold it. If you had a bigger PP, or if there wasn't a flush draw, or especially both, you could get away without betting. Your hand has almost no outs if it is behind an A though, so I think a bet is your line.The river check is correct, I think. You're calling anything, of course. Any A is calling a bet, any flush draw is folding. You might get a midpair to call you, but it would have to be extremely weak of the midpair (which is possible at this limit). As well, a flush draw might bluff the river, and a donkish midpair might value-bet his second best hand.If you lost this hand, you didn't lose as much as you could have. If you won, then I don't see how you could have won much more playing it differently.

#30 RonnyMemphis

RonnyMemphis

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 28 August 2005 - 07:26 PM

I wanted to chime in and say how I would play it.I would raise preflop as you did, and on the flop I would have to bet, and depending on how many callers 3 bet a raise. I think it's nice that the button bet this time, but thats too much of a risk when you have a vulnerable hand. Id be sick to see it get checked and have a K or Q on the turn. If opponent is on a weak ace you most likely wont be raised, but if hes on a flush draw he may raise. Thus my thoughts on flop 3 bet if youre raised. Turn and River, both the turn and river are actually dependant on what kind of player button is. If he is passive you should be betting both the turn and the river. You are much more likely to win the hand if a passive is calling you, than if you are calling him. If he is aggressive, you can think about inducing a bluff, but still on the turn you risk giving a free card. So I bet. The river i check versus a tight aggressive opponent hoping to induce a bluff.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users