playing AK preflop
MicroLimitPlayer
I have AK offsuit UTG and raise preflop.
Both blinds call.
Flop: 7T4 rainbow
Blinds check, I bet, both call.
Turn :7T4T
Blinds check, I bet, SB folds, BB calls.
I forget what the river card was except that it was a blank,
BB checks and I check behind him,
he wins with A7 offsuit.
I find that the lower the stakes the greater the tendency there is for players
to "defend" the blinds. The player with A7o in the BB probably doesn't fully
understand the concept of domination. I would probably have folded that same
hand except to a very looser raiser. I'll cut to the chase: because this kind
of situation seems to happen so often in small stakes games I'm thinking that it
might be better to just call (depending on position) with AK preflop. What is
lost in equity may be more than made up for in deceptive value gained. And of
course one small bet is saved. However with several players already in it may
be better to raise for value (and possibly at a full table).
In another hand I played recently 6 handed I lost with AT to AK and silently
cursed the other players stupidity for not raising preflop...
Any thoughts?
Thanks in advanced.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
www.theonlinepokers.com
tournaments i think. If i have only few chips (half of the average and less), i
am going always all in. When you raise one big blind others will call with
suited or something like Q 9, 9 10, only way to win is raise a lot 5-10x BB.
David Nicoson
> 6 player small stakes game.
>
> I have AK offsuit UTG and raise preflop.
> Both blinds call.
> Flop: 7T4 rainbow
> Blinds check, I bet, both call.
> Turn :7T4T
> Blinds check, I bet, SB folds, BB calls.
> I forget what the river card was except that it was a blank,
> BB checks and I check behind him,
> he wins with A7 offsuit.
>
> I find that the lower the stakes the greater the tendency there is for players
> to "defend" the blinds. The player with A7o in the BB probably doesn't fully
> understand the concept of domination. I would probably have folded that same
> hand except to a very looser raiser. I'll cut to the chase: because this kind
> of situation seems to happen so often in small stakes games I'm thinking that it
> might be better to just call (depending on position) with AK preflop.
You were ahead when you raised preflop, so I don't think that's what
you need to change. If your opponents don't fear an overpair, then
maybe the problem is betting the flop and turn. Or not betting the
river? At any rate, losing this hand doesn't tell me that your raise
preflop was a mistake.
Gary Carson
On Jul 3 2006 2:17 PM, MicroLimitPlayer wrote:
> 6 player small stakes game.
>
> I have AK offsuit UTG and raise preflop.
> Both blinds call.
> Flop: 7T4 rainbow
> Blinds check, I bet, both call.
> Turn :7T4T
> Blinds check, I bet, SB folds, BB calls.
> I forget what the river card was except that it was a blank,
> BB checks and I check behind him,
> he wins with A7 offsuit.
>
> I find that the lower the stakes the greater the tendency there is for players
> to "defend" the blinds.
It's been my observation that the lower the stakes the greater the tendency for
preflop raisers to make ;pointless and desperate continuation bets.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
Preflop, the AKo is about 64% to win against a hand with two broadway cards,
which is the kind of hand you're likely to be called with.
Once you see that flop, the AKo is about 51% to win against two broadway cards.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Zoloft
> It's been my observation that the lower the stakes the greater the
> tendency for
> preflop raisers to make ;pointless and desperate continuation bets.
I see a lot of that, too. Recently, a player that takes notes on other
players told me I don't make enough continuation bets.
Max Coin
After the check-call by both players you have think at least one liked the flop.
Save a bet on the turn. I stopped trying to steal pots with A-K when two
players check to me on the flop after they both call my pre flop raise.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
MicroLimitPlayer
On Jul 3 2006 3:56 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 3 2006 2:17 PM, MicroLimitPlayer wrote:
>
> > 6 player small stakes game.
> >
> > I have AK offsuit UTG and raise preflop.
> > Both blinds call.
> > Flop: 7T4 rainbow
> > Blinds check, I bet, both call.
> > Turn :7T4T
> > Blinds check, I bet, SB folds, BB calls.
> > I forget what the river card was except that it was a blank,
> > BB checks and I check behind him,
> > he wins with A7 offsuit.
> >
> > I find that the lower the stakes the greater the tendency there is for
> > players
> > to "defend" the blinds.
>
> It's been my observation that the lower the stakes the greater the tendency
> for
> preflop raisers to make ;pointless and desperate continuation bets.
>
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
Your point is irrelavant and your sarcasm unnecesary. For someone pretending to
be an expert you don't seem to make much effort trying to present a good image.
Something that might help sell your very mediocre books.
JG
The context for the guy's question was shorthanded poker (6-max, in
this case). He didn't say if it was limit or no-limit, but I am
assuming limit. You absolutely should followup on the flop a very high
percentage of the time when playing shorthanded poker and facing one or
two opponents.
The original poster raised with AKo pre-flop, the blinds call, the flop
is a ragged rainbow, and they both check to you. If you can't bet here,
stop playing poker! In fact, you should favor betting here regardless
of what your hole cards are. With AK, there's at least a reasonable
chance you still have the best hand, so bet it. Especially with
position like this, where you can earn yourself a free turn card by
betting the flop (if you choose not to fire again on the turn).
In shorthanded limit poker, continuation bets are a good thing. The
main exception is when you have a lot of pre-flop callers and the board
is coordinated. Against only one or two opponents, though, follow
through and bet the *vast* majority of the time, especially with
position.
JG
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 3 2006 3:56 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
> Your point is irrelavant and your sarcasm unnecesary.
A lot of what Carson says is generally unnecessary...but in this case
it was quite relevant. First off, you don't offer much in the way of
useful information about the hand (simply saying you "raised" and "bet"
without bothering to mention amounts, chip stacks, limit vs. NL, etc.
is pretty useless), so it's hard to conclude that you're here looking
for serious/useful feedback. The remainder of your post sounds like
the usual "the guy who beat me clearly doesn't understand poker" that
comes from someone who has badly misplayed the hand.
Secondly, the conclusion you've drawn about where your mistake was is
ass-backward. Raising pre-flop with AK is generally +EV. Just
calling...thus encouraging more people to be in the pot and killing
whatever edge the hand has...is usually a donkey move. The following
bit of analysis is particularly interesting:
"What is lost in equity may be more than made up for in deceptive value
gained."
Most of the time the only one who's going to be deceived is you,
because by calling you've done nothing to narrow the field of likely
holdings by your opponent(s). Oh, and I especially like this one:
"However with several players already in it may be better to raise for
value (and possibly at a full table)."
Raise for value? All you have is a drawing hand, and are an underdog
to the field (and even a slight dog to ANY pair). What "value" are you
raising for with several callers ahead of you?
Finally, there's Carson's point regarding your pointless continuation
bets. In most situations a CB on the flop makes sense. But when
you're called, and the flop has missed you by a mile, you have to pause
and wonder if your opponent has caught a piece. If so...what are your
follow-up bets on the turn and river, which don't help you at all,
supposed to accomplish?
> For someone pretending to
> be an expert you don't seem to make much effort trying to present a good image.
> Something that might help sell your very mediocre books.
Was that necessary/relevant?
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com
>
> The context for the guy's question was shorthanded poker (6-max, in
> this case). He didn't say if it was limit or no-limit, but I am
> assuming limit.
He goes on to make a comment about "saving a small bet", so that seems
a safe assumption. But it would have been more useful to provide such
a critical piece of information up front.
> You absolutely should followup on the flop a very high
> percentage of the time when playing shorthanded poker and facing one or
> two opponents.
On the flop, yes. But when you get two callers and the turn misses
you, what about then?
JG
> 6 player small stakes game.
>
> I have AK offsuit UTG and raise preflop.
> Both blinds call.
> Flop: 7T4 rainbow
> Blinds check, I bet, both call.
Fine so far.
> Turn :7T4T
> Blinds check, I bet, SB folds, BB calls.
You could have taken a free card here. If you were only against one
opponent, I'd fire again in this spot, and then check the river if I
didn't improve. With two opponents it's iffy, and with three or more,
you probably check. In this case, though, the Ten on the turn probably
didn't change things -- if you were ahead on the flop, you are ahead
now (someone with top pair probably would have bet or raised you on the
flop). So I think betting again is justifiable, especially since no one
has showed stength.
> I forget what the river card was except that it was a blank,
> BB checks and I check behind him,
> he wins with A7 offsuit.
Oh well, it happens. If you checked the turn, he may have bet on the
river, and it would have cost you the same as if you bet the then and
then checked the river.
> The player with A7o in the BB probably doesn't fully understand the concept of
> domination.
He's getting pretty good odds here (5-1). In a 6-max game, he doesn't
necessarily have to think he's dominated, and even if you have
something like AK, you are only about a 3-1 fav, and he's getting 5-1
on his money. So his call is justified.
> call with AK preflop.
If no one has entered the pot, this is a must raise. Open-limping in
shorthanded games is poor poker. If there are a bunch of limpers
already in the pot, then just calling may be an option (raising is
fine, too).
> deceptive value gained.
The way to beat these games is to play solid poker. Be aggressive with
good hands, and pass with your bad hands. King Yao has some good
material on shorthanded poker in his book. He lists trying to be too
deceptive as one of the most common errors in shorthanded poker.
JG
JG
> JG wrote:
>
> > You absolutely should followup on the flop a very high
> > percentage of the time when playing shorthanded poker and facing one or
> > two opponents.
>
> On the flop, yes. But when you get two callers and the turn misses
> you, what about then?
A case could be made for either betting or just checking. I don't think
either is wrong in this particular case.
JG
JG
> > call with AK preflop.
>
> If no one has entered the pot, this is a must raise. Open-limping in
> shorthanded games is poor poker. If there are a bunch of limpers
> already in the pot, then just calling may be an option (raising is
> fine, too).
One thing to add: if there is only one limper or raiser in front of
you, by all means raise with your AK to isolate that person.
JG
LuvinT...@yahoo.com
What is your case for betting on the turn when the flop and turn have
not helped you, and your continuation bet on the flop (which contained
no draws) got two callers?
JG
>
>
> What is your case for betting on the turn when the flop and turn have
> not helped you, and your continuation bet on the flop (which contained
> no draws) got two callers?
See my other response. In short, you may still have the best hand with
this board (the turn paired the top card), no one has showed much
strength, you don't give out a free card to beat you, you may induce
one or both of them to fold, and you likely buy yourself a free
showdown. Those are compelling reasons to bet.
JG
JG
shorthanded limit games. A call or two is not necessarily ominous, by
any means.
JG
LuvinT...@yahoo.com
>
> See my other response. In short, you may still have the best hand with
> this board (the turn paired the top card), no one has showed much
> strength
You've gotten two callers on a board with no real draw and that missed
you completely. How does that tell you that you "may still have the
best hand" (which baselessly assumes that you did to begin with)?
> you don't give out a free card to beat you
With two callers on the flop and no help on the turn, don't you have to
surmise that you're likely already beaten (which is accomplished with
ANY pair)?
> you may induce one or both of them to fold
You have nothing, and only something like a 12% shot at improving. At
this point getting one of them to fold is useless. Getting both to
fold is all that will help, and that seems unlikely.
> and you likely buy yourself a free showdown.
The bet on the flop already bought a free turn card, which was
squandered. Given the situation he would have been better off saving a
big bet and checking it down. As he alluded to, this is a small stakes
game (thought we don't know how small), where we all know it is next to
impossible to bluff people off a made hand even as weak as an
under-pair.
JG
> JG wrote:
> You've gotten two callers on a board with no real draw and that missed
> you completely. How does that tell you that you "may still have the
> best hand" (which baselessly assumes that you did to begin with)?
Have you played a lot of shorthanded poker at the lower or even
mid-limit range? Many average or poor players (and these are the
majority of players) call on the with flop with total junk, hoping to
pick up a draw or some other miracle on the turn. In this case, the SB
was one of those players who obviously flopped nothing and was hoping
for something on the turn.
> With two callers on the flop and no help on the turn, don't you have to
> surmise that you're likely already beaten (which is accomplished with
> ANY pair)?
No, net necessarily. All you've seen are checks and calls, which may or
may not mean anything.
> > you may induce one or both of them to fold
>
> You have nothing,
You are completely disregarding fold equity? Big mistake. Play a long
session of shorthanded poker, and you should be picking up many pots by
inducing folds via strong betting.
> Getting both to fold is all that will help, and that seems unlikely.
I get two people to fold on the turn dozens of times a week, and all I
play is shorthanded.
> The bet on the flop already bought a free turn card, which was
> squandered.
This is shorthanded poker, not a ring game. Maintaing the betting lead
is important. In shorthanded play, people are in the pot with a whole
range of hands, many of which are quite weak. This isn't a ring game
with tight players.
> Given the situation he would have been better off saving a
> big bet and checking it down.
Huh? Who is to say someone isn't going to bet into you on the river
after your wimpy show of weakness on the turn? They now know you don't
have a pair if you can't bet a board of T47T, and they can reliably put
you on a couple of high cards that missed. Against any aware player,
you will be facing a river bet. And the thing is, they may bet with
nothing or something, knowing approximately what you have. So, you may
have to call, anyway. Therefore, you saved yourself nothing by checking
the turn, and possibly let some sucker beat you for free (or bluff you)
when he would have folded.
> where we all know it is next to impossible to bluff people off a made hand even as
> weak as an under-pair.
In shorthanded poker, the same is true at the middle-ish limits, though
to a slightly lesser degree. But just because a person or two calls the
flop does not mean they have a hand. I can tell by your comments that
you are thinking of full ring games and with players whose actions mean
something.
JG
Gary Carson
That flop missed AK completely. Betting it when head up is one thing, it
probably missed them also. But betting it against two limpers, I'm not so sure
is a good idea at all.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Gary Carson
On Jul 3 2006 4:35 PM, MicroLimitPlayer wrote:
> Your point is irrelavant and your sarcasm unnecesary. For someone pretending
> to
> be an expert you don't seem to make much effort trying to present a good
> image.
> Something that might help sell your very mediocre books.
I guess my point wasn't made very well, probably because you don't understand
sarcasm.
I pretty much don't pretend to be anything. Some book authors like to tout
themselves as self proclaimed experts, I'm not one of those.
I'm not sure where I fall in the image part, I do wear better shirts than
Malmuth, but not as good as Danny. So I guess I'm kind of a mid-image kind of a
guy.
Don't you find it amazing that even mediocre books can find a publisher and
actually stay in print? America is just great.
But, all in all, you're right. You didn't ask about how you played the hand,
you just asked about whether you should raise preflop. The answer is
Not if you're going to play so badly after the flop.
>
>
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Jul 3 2006 6:24 PM, JG wrote:
> LuvinTheGr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > JG wrote:
> > You've gotten two callers on a board with no real draw and that missed
> > you completely. How does that tell you that you "may still have the
> > best hand" (which baselessly assumes that you did to begin with)?
>
> Have you played a lot of shorthanded poker at the lower or even
> mid-limit range? Many average or poor players (and these are the
> majority of players) call on the with flop with total junk, hoping to
> pick up a draw or some other miracle on the turn.
One of the reasons they do this is that in the 6 handed game many players who
are betting tend to by hyper aggressive. Players tend to call bets because the
bets tend to have no meaning.
In this case, the SB
> was one of those players who obviously flopped nothing and was hoping
> for something on the turn.
>
Huh?
He flopped the best hand.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Old Wolf
> 6 player small stakes game.
>
> I have AK offsuit UTG and raise preflop.
> Both blinds call.
> Flop: 7T4 rainbow
> Blinds check, I bet, both call.
> Turn :7T4T
> Blinds check, I bet, SB folds, BB calls.
> I forget what the river card was except that it was a blank,
> BB checks and I check behind him,
> he wins with A7 offsuit.
>
> I find that the lower the stakes the greater the tendency there is for players
> to "defend" the blinds. The player with A7o in the BB probably doesn't fully
> understand the concept of domination.
He understands that if he hits his hand then you're going to hand
over your chips speedily.
MicroLimitPlayer
On Jul 3 2006 9:06 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 3 2006 4:35 PM, MicroLimitPlayer wrote:
>
> > Your point is irrelavant and your sarcasm unnecesary. For someone
> > pretending
> > to
> > be an expert you don't seem to make much effort trying to present a good
> > image.
> > Something that might help sell your very mediocre books.
>
> I guess my point wasn't made very well, probably because you don't understand
> sarcasm.
>
> I pretty much don't pretend to be anything. Some book authors like to tout
> themselves as self proclaimed experts, I'm not one of those.
>
> I'm not sure where I fall in the image part, I do wear better shirts than
> Malmuth, but not as good as Danny. So I guess I'm kind of a mid-image kind of
> a
> guy.
>
> Don't you find it amazing that even mediocre books can find a publisher and
> actually stay in print? America is just great.
>
> But, all in all, you're right. You didn't ask about how you played the hand,
> you just asked about whether you should raise preflop. The answer is
>
> Not if you're going to play so badly after the flop.
>
> >
> >
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
It seems you have repeated (and amplified) your original insult. But that's OK;
I probably deserved it (this time) after slighting you poker books. Truth is I
haven't read any of them... picked one up though and skipped through it for
about 3 minutes. But then I saw Helmuth's fantastic book and decided to buy
that instead (sarcasm).
To err is human, to forgive divine.
Call it even?
Gary Carson
On Jul 4 2006 12:43 AM, MicroLimitPlayer wrote:
> > But, all in all, you're right. You didn't ask about how you played the
> > hand,
> > you just asked about whether you should raise preflop. The answer is
> >
> > Not if you're going to play so badly after the flop.
> >
> >
> >
>
> It seems you have repeated (and amplified) your original insult. But that's
> OK;
> I probably deserved it (this time) after slighting you poker books. Truth is
> I
> haven't read any of them... picked one up though and skipped through it for
> about 3 minutes. But then I saw Helmuth's fantastic book and decided to buy
> that instead (sarcasm).
What in the world makes you think anybody took your previous comment as a slight
on my poker books? Nobody gives a shit what you think about them. For somebody
who plays as badly as you to bad mouth them is a good thing for me.
And, you really need to work on that sarcasm. You're really bad at it. Lot's
of people by Hellmuth's book instead of mine and they're right to do so. He's
been on TV.
> To err is human, to forgive divine.
> Call it even?
You have a long way to go before you catch up. There's nothing to forgive you
for, and I don't give a shit if you forgive me or not.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com
>
> Have you played a lot of shorthanded poker at the lower or even
> mid-limit range?
Quite a bit. Most of us start out that way.
> Many average or poor players (and these are the
> majority of players) call on the with flop with total junk, hoping to
> pick up a draw or some other miracle on the turn.
My experience is that most will call when they catch 2nd or even 3rd
pair hoping that they will hold up or improve (and will not raise until
the latter occurs) or if they catch a draw. Some will even call with
what the OP had, AK, just because they think it's pretty. Most, even
the truly weak ones, don't call when the flop misses them completely.
> In this case, the SB
> was one of those players who obviously flopped nothing and was hoping
> for something on the turn.
You're making a baseless assumption here. He may well have paired the
4 and then been scared off by the 2nd T on the turn.
> > With two callers on the flop and no help on the turn, don't you have to
> > surmise that you're likely already beaten (which is accomplished with
> > ANY pair)?
>
> No, net necessarily. All you've seen are checks and calls, which may or
> may not mean anything.
May or may not? You could say that about the action in ANY hand. The
useful question is, "What do they *likely* mean?"
> > You have nothing,
>
> You are completely disregarding fold equity?
That's a silly question, since I've said/suggested no such thing. In
fact, I quite explicitely stated (in the post you responded to) that
there's only fold equity in this situation if you can get BOTH
opponents to fold, which seems highly unlikely with two callers.
> Play a long session of shorthanded poker
Been there, done that...but thanks for the advice.
> and you should be picking up many pots by
> inducing folds via strong betting.
I suggest you move beyond Chapter 1 of whatever book you're playing and
get to the part where they talk about dealing with each situation on
its own merits.
> > Getting both to fold is all that will help, and that seems unlikely.
So...you DID read this from my post? Then your question earlier about
discounting fold equity is extra silly.
> I get two people to fold on the turn dozens of times a week, and all I
> play is shorthanded.
Wow! Dozens of times a week?
> This is shorthanded poker, not a ring game. Maintaing the betting lead
> is important. In shorthanded play, people are in the pot with a whole
> range of hands, many of which are quite weak.
And many are catching 2nd/3rd pair, which they won't let go of. I
think YOU are missing the really critical factor here. Namely, that
this is a limit game. If it were NL you'd have a much better chance of
pushing Mr. Second Pair out with a pot-sized bet. But in limit you're
stuck with fixed bets which, by the turn, are quite small relative to
the size of the pot. When OP makes his turn bet the BB is getting
5.5:1 to call with 2nd pair, and the possibility that OP is holding
nothing but A-high (which he was). Less likely, but still a
possibility, BB might even have been paying attention and had noticed
OP making these sorts of bluff continuation bets before. So why would
he fold?
> This isn't a ring game with tight players.
You assume that at low/micro-levels the players get tighter as the
tables get larger? I don't think you're paying attention.
> > Given the situation he would have been better off saving a
> > big bet and checking it down.
>
> Huh? Who is to say someone isn't going to bet into you on the river
> after your wimpy show of weakness on the turn?
Maybe they will. Are you under the impression that AK gets to win
every time?
> Therefore, you saved yourself nothing by checking
> the turn
You saved a big bet in a hand you probably aren't going to win.
> I can tell by your comments that
> you are thinking of full ring games and with players whose actions mean
> something.
Nope.
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com
>
> In this case, the SB
> > was one of those players who obviously flopped nothing and was hoping
> > for something on the turn.
> >
>
> Huh?
>
> He flopped the best hand.
No Gary...that was BB.
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com
> 6 player small stakes game.
>
> I have AK offsuit UTG and raise preflop.
> Both blinds call.
> Flop: 7T4 rainbow
> Blinds check, I bet, both call.
> Turn :7T4T
> Blinds check, I bet, SB folds, BB calls.
> I forget what the river card was except that it was a blank,
> BB checks and I check behind him,
> he wins with A7 offsuit.
>
> I find that the lower the stakes the greater the tendency there is for players
> to "defend" the blinds. The player with A7o in the BB probably doesn't fully
> understand the concept of domination.
At what point, from the flop forward, was he dominated?
MicroLimitPlayer
Did I say he was? Why do you feel the need to just make shit up? Obviously I
was referring to his preflop call of my raise. I mentioned that aspect because
I thought it relevant; he called my raise probably not understanding that he
might be drawing to only 3 outs and a weak hand. If I had known that I was
reverse dominated on the flop obviously I would of backed off.
But all this and the vast morjority of replys to my original post miss the point
entirely. My purpose was to start a serious discussion on the merits of raising
VS calling preflop with AKo in a 6 player small stakes LH game. Sure, a raise
is usually correct but maybe there are cases where a call may be better.
Anybody care to contribute?
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
Maybe you shoud suggest a case where calling would be better. If that was what
your previous example was supposed to be then you failed in a very big way.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Max Coin
I like calling in early position with AK. A raise will drive players out and
with AK you don't mind having company. Raise it late and make the limpers before
you,who probably will not fold, pay to see the flop. You've built a good pot if
the flop hits you. I understand the bet on the flop but when both players
check-call then you might think one has A-10. You should have saved a bet on the
turn. How's that?
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
LuvinT...@yahoo.com
> >
> > At what point, from the flop forward, was he dominated?
>
> Did I say he was? Why do you feel the need to just make shit up?
You're a touchy little feller, ain't ya'?
> Obviously I was referring to his preflop call of my raise.
Why is that obvious? He should assume he's dominated just because of a
single pre-flop raise?
> I mentioned that aspect because
> I thought it relevant; he called my raise probably not understanding that he
> might be drawing to only 3 outs and a weak hand.
Then again he might not be drawing to only 3 outs. You place way too
much informational value on a single pre-flop raise.
> If I had known that I was
> reverse dominated on the flop obviously I would of backed off.
You seem to think HE should have known the situation. Why didn't you?
> But all this and the vast morjority of replys to my original post miss the point
> entirely. My purpose was to start a serious discussion on the merits of raising
> VS calling preflop with AKo in a 6 player small stakes LH game. Sure, a raise
> is usually correct but maybe there are cases where a call may be better.
> Anybody care to contribute?
Perhaps you have some reading comprehension problems. That point HAS
been addressed. In fact, I was one of the people who addressed it.
JG
> JG wrote:
> >
> > Have you played a lot of shorthanded poker at the lower or even
> > mid-limit range?
>
> Quite a bit. Most of us start out that way.
>From your comments, I highly question this. But whatever.
> My experience is that most will call when they catch 2nd or even 3rd
> pair
Listen to what I say: MANY lower limit shorthanded players will call
with NOTHING on the flop but a pipe dream (backdoor draw, one overcard,
etc.) Just the same as many will call with second or third pair. So,
your logic that "two people called the flop, so I must be beat", is
patently false. That's the premise of this whole argument.
In the original poster's case, he has a decent chance of still being
ahead on the turn with AK on that board (T74T). If you can't believe
this, you haven't played much shorthanded poker at the lower limits.
> You're making a baseless assumption here. He may well have paired the
> 4 and then been scared off by the 2nd T on the turn.
You just got done saying low-limit players won't relinquish second or
third pair, and now they are gonna fold?
> May or may not? You could say that about the action in ANY hand.
Exactly. So, according to you, you should never bet the turn without
the nuts, right? You can never bet if you think you have a decent shot
at being ahead, right?
> That's a silly question, since I've said/suggested no such thing. In
> fact, I quite explicitely stated (in the post you responded to) that
> there's only fold equity in this situation if you can get BOTH
> opponents to fold, which seems highly unlikely with two callers.
BS. Even getting one person to fold improves your chances of winning,
and getting two to fold happens (as I've stated).
> So...you DID read this from my post? Then your question earlier about
> discounting fold equity is extra silly.
Getting one person to fold is good, and getting both to fold is
certaintly possible. Therefore, you have fold equity.
> And many are catching 2nd/3rd pair, which they won't let go of.
Buddy, you just told me earlier that the small blind could have folded
3rd pair? Which is what?
> Maybe they will. Are you under the impression that AK gets to win
> every time?
No, but it wins sometimes. What does it take for you to bet the turn in
a shorthanded game?
> You saved a big bet in a hand you probably aren't going to win.
Fold your AK pre-flop then. You obviously can't play it after the flop.
JG
JG
>
> That flop missed AK completely. Betting it when head up is one thing, it
> probably missed them also. But betting it against two limpers, I'm not so sure
> is a good idea at all.
In lower limit shorthanded games, you can easily get two callers on the
flop who haven't even got a primary draw, let alone a pair. Trust me, I
have smashed my desk, almost broken my hand punching the wall, and have
caused serious marital problems when I have to put up with idiots (and
this can be as many as 2 or 3 opponents) who make some ridiculous
backdoor hand that leaves me wondering "How in the FUCK could they call
on that flop? Or before the flop? Or on the turn, when all they had was
a single overcard?"
Again, the premise of my argument is:
1) People in lower limit shorthanded games play very weak values.
2) They call way too much on the flop and beyond, despite the lack of
any primary strength in their hand.
Therefore, one cannot assume that 2 callers means you are beat -- by
any means whatsover. And as the games get more shorthanded, this
becomes more and more true. It simply isn't the same as ring games, or
tournaments, or whatever else. If you don't adjust for this, you are
going to be playing a weak shorthanded game.
JG
JG
> On Jul 3 2006 6:24 PM, JG wrote:
> One of the reasons they do this is that in the 6 handed game many players who
> are betting tend to by hyper aggressive. Players tend to call bets because the
> bets tend to have no meaning.
For some players, this is true. But for most, it's not. Bad players
call with very weak hands because that's what they do.
Where do you think the very nice profits come from in online
shorthanded games? Why are they so lucrative? Because they attract bad
players, who play crappy cards, and who needlessly call bets with junk.
JG
Gary Carson
On Jul 4 2006 9:36 PM, JG wrote:
> Gary Carson wrote:
> >
> > That flop missed AK completely. Betting it when head up is one thing, it
> > probably missed them also. But betting it against two limpers, I'm not so
> > sure
> > is a good idea at all.
>
> In lower limit shorthanded games, you can easily get two callers on the
> flop who haven't even got a primary draw, let alone a pair. Trust me, I
> have smashed my desk, almost broken my hand punching the wall, and have
> caused serious marital problems when I have to put up with idiots (and
> this can be as many as 2 or 3 opponents) who make some ridiculous
> backdoor hand that leaves me wondering "How in the FUCK could they call
> on that flop? Or before the flop? Or on the turn, when all they had was
> a single overcard?"
You have really serious mental problems and you need to get help.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Max Coin
Are you saying you would be surprised to find out that you had lost the hand at
the showdown?
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com
>
> Listen to what I say:
I have been. The problem is that you're not listening, which you go on
to demonstrate:
> MANY lower limit shorthanded players will call
> with NOTHING on the flop but a pipe dream (backdoor draw, one overcard,
> etc.)
Define "many". We need an approximate percentage in order to evaluate
the likelyhood of that being the case here. Oh, and some inside
information on the play of the actual opponents in question would be a
big help too.
> Just the same as many will call with second or third pair. So,
> your logic that "two people called the flop, so I must be beat", is
> patently false. That's the premise of this whole argument.
Sorry, but that's not what I said (which makes your "Listen to what I
say" admonishment so hypocritical.) I said that you are likely beaten.
Here...let me re-post the exact quote for you:
"With two callers on the flop and no help on the turn, don't you have
to
surmise that you're likely already beaten (which is accomplished with
ANY pair)?"
We're dealing in probabilities here, not certainties.
> In the original poster's case, he has a decent chance of still being
> ahead on the turn with AK on that board (T74T).
How "decent"?
> If you can't believe
> this, you haven't played much shorthanded poker at the lower limits.
You keep claiming this as though it will become true simply by virtue
of you repeating it.
> You just got done saying low-limit players won't relinquish second or
> third pair, and now they are gonna fold?
You have some serioush English comprehension issues. At no point have
I made the unqualified, absolute assertion that, "low-limit players
won't relinquish second or third pair". If you're going to respond,
try responding to what I've actually said, not what you imagine that
I've said.
> > May or may not? You could say that about the action in ANY hand.
>
> Exactly. So, according to you, you should never bet the turn without
> the nuts, right?
Why is resonding to what I've said...rather than inventing your own
exaggerated versions of what I've said...so damend difficult for you?
Besides, your response is a complete non-sequitur.
> You can never bet if you think you have a decent shot
> at being ahead, right?
Where the hell do you get this from?
> > That's a silly question, since I've said/suggested no such thing. In
> > fact, I quite explicitely stated (in the post you responded to) that
> > there's only fold equity in this situation if you can get BOTH
> > opponents to fold, which seems highly unlikely with two callers.
>
> BS. Even getting one person to fold improves your chances of winning
Theoretically, yes. But in practical terms in this specific
situation...no. The one who doesn't fold is far more likely to be the
one who has you beat, wouldn't you say?
> and getting two to fold happens (as I've stated).
And people win the lottery. Does that make buying a ticket +EV?
> Getting one person to fold is good, and getting both to fold is
> certaintly possible. Therefore, you have fold equity.
It would appear that you don't know the difference between
"possibility" and "probability".
> > And many are catching 2nd/3rd pair, which they won't let go of.
>
> Buddy, you just told me earlier that the small blind could have folded
> 3rd pair? Which is what?
The above was a generalized statement. The earlier observations was
with regard to a very specific set of events. Try to learn to
differentiate between things.
> No, but it wins sometimes. What does it take for you to bet the turn in
> a shorthanded game?
A combined likelyhood of improving to the best hand or inducing all
opponents to fold that exceeds the likelyhood of neither of those
things happening.
> Fold your AK pre-flop then. You obviously can't play it after the flop.
The only thing that's obvious is your inability to understand what you
read.
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 4 2006 11:46 AM, MicroLimitPlayer wrote:
>
> I like calling in early position with AK. A raise will drive players out and
> with AK you don't mind having company.
I don't mind having one caller...but limping from early position
encourages *multiple* callers (with each player getting better and
better odds to call with any two cards). AK most certainly DOES
dislike a crowd.
MicroLimitPlayer
<LuvinT...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
/news:1152055542.1...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >
MicroLimitPlayer wrote:
> > >
> > > At what point, from the flop forward, was he dominated?
> >
> > Did I say he was? Why do you feel the need to just make shit up?
>
> pejorative funny, but I think it shows up a possible flaw in your
> character.
>
> > Obviously I was referring to his preflop call of my raise.
>
> Why is that obvious? He should assume he's dominated just because of a
> post. If there is a raise preflop and I have ace rag I would seriously
> consider (but not "assume" as you put it) the possibility of domination and
> the possibility of continuing with what may turn out to be a costly hand.
>
> > I mentioned that aspect because
> > I thought it relevant; he called my raise probably not understanding that
> > he
> > might be drawing to only 3 outs and a weak hand.
>
> Then again he might not be drawing to only 3 outs. You place way too
>
>
> > If I had known that I was
> > reverse dominated on the flop obviously I would of backed off.
>
> You seem to think HE should have known the situation. Why didn't you?
> Because I was playing the hand, not reading about it after the fact like
> you. In poker results are often divorced from actions. You try and make
> the right choice and hope for a favorable outcome. I may have done
> better to omit the river/showdown from my post; hindsight tends to make
> everone an expert.
>
>
> > But all this and the vast morjority of replys to my original post miss the
> > point
> > entirely. My purpose was to start a serious discussion on the merits of
> > raising
> > VS calling preflop with AKo in a 6 player small stakes LH game. Sure, a
> > raise
> > is usually correct but maybe there are cases where a call may be better.
> > Anybody care to contribute?
>
> Perhaps you have some reading comprehension problems. That point HAS
> been addressed. In fact, I was one of the people who addressed it.
> No you most certainly did not. This is your third post in this thread.
> Below is a copy/paste of your previous two. Nowhere do you address the
> issue of preflop play with AK. Perhaps you also like to make things up
> and then proceed as though they were true. Although not truly
> schizophrenic (because you know the difference between reality and
> fantasy) it amounts to the same because your actions are out of step
> with reality. Don't take this as an insult I'm trying to help you.
> Remember; the first step toward recovery is admitting you have a
> problem. Good luck to you. --------- your first post in this
> thread: JG wrote:
> wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > JG wrote:
> >
> > > You absolutely should followup on the flop a very high
> > > percentage of the time when playing shorthanded poker and facing one or
> > > two opponents.
> >
> > On the flop, yes. But when you get two callers and the turn misses
> > you, what about then?
>
> A case could be made for either betting or just checking. I don't think
> either is wrong in this particular case.
What is your case for betting on the turn when the flop and turn have
not helped you, and your continuation bet on the flop (which contained
no draws) got two callers?
-------- your second post in this thread: JG wrote:
>
> See my other response. In short, you may still have the best hand with
> this board (the turn paired the top card), no one has showed much
> strength
You've gotten two callers on a board with no real draw and that missed
you completely. How does that tell you that you "may still have the
best hand" (which baselessly assumes that you did to begin with)?
> you don't give out a free card to beat you
With two callers on the flop and no help on the turn, don't you have to
surmise that you're likely already beaten (which is accomplished with
ANY pair)?
> you may induce one or both of them to fold
You have nothing, and only something like a 12% shot at improving. At
this point getting one of them to fold is useless. Getting both to
fold is all that will help, and that seems unlikely.
> and you likely buy yourself a free showdown.
The bet on the flop already bought a free turn card, which was
squandered. Given the situation he would have been better off saving a
big bet and checking it down. As he alluded to, this is a small stakes
game (thought we don't know how small), where we all know it is next to
impossible to bluff people off a made hand even as weak as an
under-pair.
------ end of your posts If I missed the place where you address preflop play I
apologize in advance. But I don't think so. I looked more than once.
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com
> >
> > Perhaps you have some reading comprehension problems. That point HAS
> > been addressed. In fact, I was one of the people who addressed it.
> >
> > No you most certainly did not.
First, let's take note of the fact that you claimed that no one was
addressing the issue of pre-flop raising vs. calling. That's clearly
false. Secondly, I would point out that you conveniently ignored the
bulk of my post, which was substantive in nature, in favor of your
desire to continue the real purpose of your posting
here....belligerant, personal pissing matches. Third, your response
claiming that I'd "missed your point" with regard to raising vs.
calling with AK was to a post I made under my "WuzYoungOnceToo" account
(multiple accounts used due to posting volume restrictions via Google,
though I certainly don't expect you to have known that). Under that
account, I previously posted the following:
"Secondly, the conclusion you've drawn about where your mistake was is
ass-backward. Raising pre-flop with AK is generally +EV. Just
calling...thus encouraging more people to be in the pot and killing
whatever edge the hand has...is usually a donkey move. The following
bit of analysis is particularly interesting:
<<What is lost in equity may be more than made up for in deceptive
value
gained.>>
Most of the time the only one who's going to be deceived is you,
because by calling you've done nothing to narrow the field of likely
holdings by your opponent(s). Oh, and I especially like this one:
<<However with several players already in it may be better to raise for
value (and possibly at a full table).>>
Raise for value? All you have is a drawing hand, and are an underdog
to the field (and even a slight dog to ANY pair). What "value" are you
raising for with several callers ahead of you?>>
So, the issue most certainly was addressed, and it was addressed by me.
Interestingly, you *completely* ignored that entire post. Completely.
So I think we can safely dispense with your claim that what you're
really interested in is, "a serious discussion on the merits of raising
VS calling preflop with AKo in a 6 player small stakes LH game".
Clearly all you're interested in is posting a lot of obnoxious,
hyper-defensive bullshit.
Max Coin
Its a drawing hand that usualy needs help on the flop to win.Thats why I dont
mind callers.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com
> >
> > I don't mind having one caller...but limping from early position
> > encourages *multiple* callers (with each player getting better and
> > better odds to call with any two cards). AK most certainly DOES
> > dislike a crowd.
>
> Its a drawing hand that usualy needs help on the flop to win.Thats why I dont
> mind callers.
The problem being that even when you do get help (catch an A, K...or
both) having multiple callers often still kills you, especially if you
hit it hard (AK on the flop). This is especially true at micro-stakes
games, where multiple people limping with any two suited are going to
chase that flopped flush draw with a vengeance.
MikeCash
just do not believe you gain much by using any deception (which is what
limping would be considered) in this situation. Plus, you lose a
little by allowing suited-connectors, small pairs, etc, call behind you
for only one bet.
The exception would be if I had an ultra aggressive (maniac) player
behind me. By this I mean ONLY a player who is raising the majority of
his hands. In this situation, I would mix up my play a bit, but still
raise the majority of the time with AK.
Regards,
Mike Cash
Free $100 for Poker Room, Sportsbook or Casino
http://www.bodog.com/allinpl
Gary Carson
Here's an old thread on the merits of raising preflop with AKo
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_frm/thread/5417043e94a3
15ed/f45d4f3a1c6cfba4?q=carson+AK&rnum=1#f45d4f3a1c6cfba4
or
On Jul 5 2006 2:57 PM, wuzyoun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> MicroLimitPlayer wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps you have some reading comprehension problems. That point HAS
> > > been addressed. In fact, I was one of the people who addressed it.
> > >
> > > No you most certainly did not.
>
> First, let's take note of the fact that you claimed that no one was
> addressing the issue of pre-flop raising vs. calling. That's clearly
> false. Secondly, I would point out that you conveniently ignored the
> bulk of my post, which was substantive in nature, in favor of your
> desire to continue the real purpose of your posting
> here....belligerant, personal pissing matches. Third, your response
> claiming that I'd "missed your point" with regard to raising vs.
> calling with AK was to a post I made under my "WuzYoungOnceToo" account
> (multiple accounts used due to posting volume restrictions via Google,
> though I certainly don't expect you to have known that). Under that
> account, I previously posted the following:
>
> "Secondly, the conclusion you've drawn about where your mistake was is
> ass-backward. Raising pre-flop with AK is generally +EV. Just
> calling...thus encouraging more people to be in the pot and killing
> whatever edge the hand has...is usually a donkey move. The following
> bit of analysis is particularly interesting:
>
> <> value
> gained.>>
>
>
> Most of the time the only one who's going to be deceived is you,
> because by calling you've done nothing to narrow the field of likely
> holdings by your opponent(s). Oh, and I especially like this one:
>
>
> <>
> value (and possibly at a full table).>>
>
>
> Raise for value? All you have is a drawing hand, and are an underdog
> to the field (and even a slight dog to ANY pair). What "value" are you
>
> raising for with several callers ahead of you?>>
>
>
>
> So, the issue most certainly was addressed, and it was addressed by me.
> Interestingly, you *completely* ignored that entire post. Completely.
> So I think we can safely dispense with your claim that what you're
> really interested in is, "a serious discussion on the merits of raising
> VS calling preflop with AKo in a 6 player small stakes LH game".
> Clearly all you're interested in is posting a lot of obnoxious,
> hyper-defensive bullshit.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com/
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Max Coin
But these same players will not let their hands go to a raise from early
position. A raise simply builds the pot making it even harder for the donkeys to
fold their draws on the flop.
LuvinT...@yahoo.com
> But these same players will not let their hands go to a raise from early
> position. A raise simply builds the pot making it even harder for the donkeys to
> fold their draws on the flop.
I think you're erroneously lumping people with trash suited cards...who
can be pushed out with a pre-flop raise...with those you let limp in
with that same trash, and who then flop a flush draw. NOW they're not
letting go.