Poker Gaming & Life, p16 example
Stephen Jacobs
get the answer to this one.
On p 16 of the book cited, Sklansky gives you Ks9s in the BB. A tough
player has raises and you call, getting it heads-up. On a flop of Kc9d3c
you check and call. You both check the turn of 2c. River is Qs and
Sklansky says to go for a check-raise. I don't see it. In fact, I can't
follow the logic of trying to check-raise the turn, either. It looks to me
like you just might be beaten, and a tough opponent will only bet out if you
are.
In the words of Neils Bohr: "I say it not to criticize, but only to learn."
What's the reasoning here?
robert.miller
If I'm in early position with top two pair on the flop, a preflop raiser
behind me, and two clubs on board. I would checkraise on the flop (the
prelop raiser will bet with probability close to 1) and if raised, cap it.
If he's got KK, 99 or (ahem) 33, you're going to get squashed (low chance of
that if you've got K9). If he's got anything else, you have to punish him
badly to draw out on you. AA, AK will pay you off all the way. AXc has to
be punished.
When the Q falls on the river, the checkraise is absolutely stupid. The
only purpose of that is to induce a bluff. You could be a loser to TJs or
QQ. I see many people hold their raises til the river when they could
actually be beaten. That strategy is unnerving to good players but it is
moronic. When you're the best, get your money in. When there is a good
chance you're beat, slow down. On the river there, I would either
check/call or bet/call. I would never consider a checkraise.
If he's got AQc or even AQ, he would play exactly as the situation describes
and he might even raise your bet on the river believing your checks to mean
"no King" and putting you on a bad Q. The gains from inducing the bluff (or
a value bet from AQ) on the river are not as good as betting the flop and
turn and you give away free cards.
Here's my general rule:
Flopped straight or two pair: get as many bets in as possible
Flopped trips: check raise
Flopped set: checkraise with two of a suit on board, wait til turn to raise
otherwise.
"Stephen Jacobs" <jac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jb-cndIjLJ4...@comcast.com...
Gary Carson
<robert...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>I don't know where Sklansky is coming from if what you say is
correct.
>
>If I'm in early position with top two pair on the flop, a preflop
raiser
>behind me, and two clubs on board. I would checkraise on the flop
(the
>prelop raiser will bet with probability close to 1) and if raised,
cap it.
>If he's got KK, 99 or (ahem) 33, you're going to get squashed (low
chance of
>that if you've got K9). If he's got anything else, you have to
punish him
>badly to draw out on you. AA, AK will pay you off all the way. AXc
has to
>be punished.
>
>When the Q falls on the river, the checkraise is absolutely stupid.
The
>only purpose of that is to induce a bluff.
Does he say checkraise or does he say check?
robert.miller
>
I added the disclaimer "if what you say [about Sklansky] is correct".
If I have top two pair on the flop in the BB, I'm checkraising the flop and
betting both turn and river unless an A or a third club hits the river. I
might also check/call the river if the board pairs the turn.
What would you do with top two pair in the BB in this case Gary?
I'm also assuming this is limit poker the guy is talking about.
Gary Carson
<robert...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> Does he say checkraise or does he say check?
>>
>According to the poster, Sklansky said check-raise on the river.
That's why
>I added the disclaimer "if what you say [about Sklansky] is correct".
>
>If I have top two pair on the flop in the BB, I'm checkraising the
flop and
>betting both turn and river unless an A or a third club hits the
river. I
>might also check/call the river if the board pairs the turn.
>
>What would you do with top two pair in the BB in this case Gary?
I'm going to play it aggresevily.
I suspect that book was written by Malmuth, I don't know for sure.
Malmuth has such a reputation for being a wothless tight-ass that it
probably is better for him to play a passive-aggressive game.
If the board has a flush draw I might bet the flop then check-raise
the turn. It depends on who's in the hand. I'll sometimes do that
representing a flush draw to get the check raise in on the bigger bet.
I might even check-raise the flop then try a second check-raise on the
turn. Usually I'll proablay just bet though.
>
>I'm also assuming this is limit poker the guy is talking about.
Pot limit I'll probably check-raise the flop. No limit I'll probably
bet.
Dsklansky
Gary Carson
>Hey boys, the flop is K83.
Okay, now we're making some sense.
I've actually got a short section on that in my book, it came from an
old rgp thread.
Based on a combination of my own experiences, other's experiences
reported in the rgp thread, and a lot of TTH sims I came to the
conclustion that what you should do with top pair weak kicker depends
on the characteristics of your opponents. Surprise, surprise.
Against typical type opponents you should check the flop. Maybe call,
maybe raise.
Against loose and/or passive opponents you should bet the flop.
The typical type opponents will more likely bet weak hands if you
check.
The loose oppoents will call with all kinds of random shit.
The passive players won't bluff and won't bet weak hands but will
call.
So, if you're in a good game, bet, if you're in a so-so game check.
There is no wrong answer to the question, it just depends on what you
assume about the other players.
robert.miller
I should have guessed that the opening premise was not quite right. Sorry
David. That gets quite a bit trickier.
Suppose I have K9 in the BB and the flop is K83. He could have alpines, a
better K, a set of K's or 9's. In those cases, I'm paying him off with few
outs. But he could also have a flush draw or QQ/JJ/TT and playing it
strongly. In these latter cases, a reraise is the correct decision. But
where am I???
I would bet the flop, call a raise, then check and call to river. Knowing
this is a solid player helps not at all. There are a variety of hands that
would induce a preflop raise but still be worse than my hand. Checking
flop, turn and river makes some sense too but my aggressive style won't
permit that. If in doubt, bet it out.
I still don't get the checkraise on the river. I'd just as soon bet it
myself. I view the check-raise as a way to get bets in the pot when I'm
ahead. The only time I use it on the river is when I hit an unlikely draw
and I know the guy will bet the river.
Can you explain your reasoning David?
BTW, I'm originally from Teaneck too.
Easy E
I'll hazard a guess, hopefully David will catch this one and give
the real reply.
A tough opponent is going to come after your blinds with a lot of
hands. When s/he checks the flop behind you, a situation just
begging for a "bet and take it" move, that often implies that he does
NOT have a top hand (maybe a set). When the 3rd club comes and she
STILL doesn't bet it, odds are that he doesn't have the set, a flush
or 2 pair either. A top flush draw on the flop almost always will bet
the flop here (at least at the games that DS is used to)
A KQ most CERTAINLY would bet somewhere along the way. You
therefore have a chance to
a) induce a river bet that you can raise, that s/he wouldn't have
called at any other time with presumably a weak hand- she'll be
suspicious of a steal raise.
b) represent the nut flush, driving out a better hand
Anyway, that's my guess. I don't think I would play it that way
either, but I don't have 20+ years of poker experience either.
Stephen Jacobs
"Dsklansky" <dskl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030429203739...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> Hey boys, the flop is K83.
Sorry. Every few months I look back at that example, and it never makes
sense to me. This time I was a little tired and the spots on the cards were
moving around.
I actually thought that this would be a faq list entry.
MCS
What is "alpines"? AA?
--MCS
Abdul Jalib
> I'm not the worlds best internet searcher, but I spent 15 minutes and didn't
> get the answer to this one.
>
> On p 16 of the book cited, Sklansky gives you Ks9s in the BB. A tough
> player has raises and you call, getting it heads-up. On a flop of Kc9d3c
> you check and call. You both check the turn of 2c. River is Qs and
> Sklansky says to go for a check-raise. I don't see it.
The river check(raise) makes perfect sense to me, though I liked it
more when the board was K932Q than the revised K832Q (though the flush
possibility gives you protection from a 3-bet from KQ just like the straight
possibility does.) If the opponent was in late position, then for sure you
have to check-raise the river. If he was in early position, then you may
wish to bet out, especially if he might call with ace high.
> In fact, I can't follow the logic of trying to check-raise the turn,
> either.
I really doubt Sklansky intended a check-raise on the turn. That
was a failed check-call. I prefer a bet on the turn, but the check
may set up what he plans on the river, and I think he's trying to
manipulate the number of bets that go in when he finishes with
the best hand versus when he doesn't.
> It looks to me like you just might be beaten, and a tough opponent will
> only bet out if you are.
On the river, a tough opponent with a weak hand (e.g., JTo on the button)
will bet out (bluff.) Also, a tough opponent with a hand like AQ will
value bet here. It's the combination of those two things and the
protection from getting 3-bet by KQ that makes a check-raise tempting.
--
Abdul Deep Thought #9
In a situation at a poker table in Vegas, a player from LA insisted
that an LA rule be applied in lieu of the proper Vegas rule; the
end result was a wrongly declared misdeal. I don't care what
the rules are, so long as the rules are consistently applied.
So, when 2 am rolled around, I threw away his beer.
T. Pascal
>Abdul Deep Thought #9
>In a situation at a poker table in Vegas, a player from LA insisted
>that an LA rule be applied in lieu of the proper Vegas rule; the
>end result was a wrongly declared misdeal. I don't care what
>the rules are, so long as the rules are consistently applied.
>So, when 2 am rolled around, I threw away his beer.
>
Sorry to be so dense here. But it took me a good hour to figure out.
I was wondering why you would throw away his beer (other than to
simply be spiteful). Then it hit my brain like an exploding flash
bulb: in Los Angeles, they don't serve alcohol after 2am. That may
or may not be true as I've never been there (much less tried to order
beer after 2am), but I think it's right. I'm still giggling about it
now that I get it.
My one comment to fix this up is to add "like they do in LA" at the
end of the last sentence. Then it becomes extremely funny and
enjoyable for those of us who are very very dense and stupid. Or
maybe I'm the only one.
Paul Phillips
T. Pascal <t_pa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>My one comment to fix this up is to add "like they do in LA" at the
>end of the last sentence.
For the love of god, leave the humor to people with humor powers.
>Then it becomes extremely funny and enjoyable for those of us who are
>very very dense and stupid.
This hits the nail on the head; unfortunately it becomes much less funny
for everyone else. The joke is perfectly structured to communicate that,
in california, at 2am they stop serving alcohol. To explicitly point this
out would be unfunnily redundant and insulting to the reader.
As you read, try turning on the "inference" portion of your brain.
(They say humor can't be taught, but that'll take you a long ways...)
--
Paul Phillips | Practice acting random and sense a kind of beauty.
Caged Spirit |
Empiricist |
all hip pupils! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Easy E
\>
> for everyone else. The joke is perfectly structured to communicate that,
> in california, at 2am they stop serving alcohol.
alcohol rule on the West Coast. Therefore, the full extent of the
joke wasn't clear UNTIL T commented on it....
I do agree that, for those in the know, the joke loses OOMMPHH with
an explaination...
To explicitly point this
> out would be unfunnily redundant and insulting to the reader.
Depends on the reader, I guess. I'll just wait for YOU to insult me
in a more obvious way...
>
> As you read, try turning on the "inference" portion of your brain.
At 2 a.m., missing my last beer? How can I do that?
T. Pascal
> Paul Phillips <rg...@improving.org> wrote in message news:<b8osdk$ste$1...@spoon.improving.org>...
> \>
> > This hits the nail on the head; unfortunately it becomes much less funny
> > for everyone else. The joke is perfectly structured to communicate that,
> > in california, at 2am they stop serving alcohol.
>
> For me, it would have been a reach, not knowing about the 2 a.m.
> alcohol rule on the West Coast. Therefore, the full extent of the
> joke wasn't clear UNTIL T commented on it....
> I do agree that, for those in the know, the joke loses OOMMPHH with
> an explaination...
>
Vegas_ twenty times. But it took me a while to recall that
information.
It depends on what the author wanted. It's not unusual for a
localised custom to seem very familiar and universal but would be
obscure to those outside the custom. Those who are familiar with the
2am rule (even non-drinking non-nightowls in Los Angeles might not
understand the rule) would get it and laugh for a long time. Others
would not laugh but smile, trying to decipher it. If the author
provides a little hint that this is the custom at 2am in Los Angeles,
then everyone can laugh for a medium length of time while the insiders
only laugh for a short time, wishing the author hadn't been so
redundant.
So if Abdul wanted to maximise the insiders' laughter, he leaves it
the way it is. To maximise all laughter on average, he can make the
adjustment. If he purposely chose the former, I apologise. If he was
unaware that this would confuse outsiders, then hopefully my
suggestion helped.
Gary Carson
in LV and 2am in a California cardroom then the joke won't be complete
for you anyway, even if it's explained. So, it's best not to explain
it and to just let the outsiders suck their thumbs and whine.
On 1 May 2003 07:22:31 -0700, t_pa...@my-deja.com (T. Pascal) wrote:
Tom Courtney
In article <3eb13086....@news.mindspring.com>, Gary Carson
<garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> It's an insider joke. Unless you've expeirenced both the 24 hour cyle
> in LV and 2am in a California cardroom then the joke won't be complete
> for you anyway, even if it's explained. So, it's best not to explain
> it and to just let the outsiders suck their thumbs and whine.
It's not that much an insider joke - I've never been in a California
card room, and didn't have any problem understanding the point.
Tom Courtney
Gary Carson
wrote:
Understanding the point and fully appreciating the joke aren't the
same thing. I would think that anyone's who's ever been in a bar at
closing time, or even just knows some bars have closing times, would
understand the point.
I do think there is something special about 2 am in a California
cardroom with everybody running around trying to grab the drinks and
all the drunks trying to hide their glasses.
Peg Smith
<v...@livingpaper.org> writes:
>It's not that much an insider joke - I've never been in a California
>card room, and didn't have any problem understanding the point.
I didn't, either. It's not as if California is the only state that cuts off the
booze at a certain time every night.
Peg