- Poker Forum
- Poker Training
- Poker Rooms
- PokerStars
- Bovada
- Poker Room Reviews
- Poker Bonuses
- Casino Deposit Bonuses
- Online Casino Bonus Codes
- Best US Poker Sites
- USA State Poker Rooms
- No Deposit Bonus
- Exclusive Poker Bonuses
- Poker Bonus Codes
- Poker Networks
- Mac Poker Rooms
- Rakeback
- Poker Downloads
- PokerStars Download
- Bet365 Poker Download
- William Hill Poker Download
- Party Poker Download
- Ladbrokes Poker Download
- 888 Poker Download
- Bwin Poker Download
- Bovada Download
- Carbon Poker Download
- Americas Cardroom Download
- Cake Poker Download
- Intertops Poker Download
- Hand Converter
- Poker News
- Online Casino
- Bet365 Casino
- Bovada Casino
- Online Video Poker
- Online Slots
- Online Blackjack
- Online Sports Betting
- Live Dealer Casino
- Online Casino Reviews
- Casino Deposit Bonus
- Online Casino Bonus Codes
- 3D Slots
- No Deposit Casinos
- Real Money Slots
- US Friendly Casinos
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
Poker Forum |
Over 1,246,000 Posts! |
|
|
| |
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| Evilpopcorn |
|
|||
|
(VP$IP/PFR [Street Aggression] FoldToC-bet% 3-bet% FoldTo3-bet%) BTN : 23/15 [4 9 inf] 50% 3% 25% over 333 hands Is my turn bet good ? Poker Stars $0.05/$0.10 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players BB: $4.85 UTG: $18.15 Hero (CO): $10.85 BTN: $12.85 SB: $10.95 Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero is CO with 8  8 1 fold, Hero raises to $0.30, BTN calls $0.30, 2 folds Flop: ($0.75) 9  3 T (2 players)Hero bets $0.50, BTN calls $0.50 Turn: ($1.75) 4  (2 players)Hero bets $1.10, BTN raises to $2.20, Hero folds |
|||
|
||||
Play for FREE and practice your game at...Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting! | ||||
| Stacks |
|
|||
| c/f flop. | |||
|
|
||||
| Evilpopcorn |
|
|||
| really ? c/f ? Reasons ? | |||
|
|
||||
| Micro2Macro |
|
|||
|
maybe this will help you think through the reasons: why did you bet flop? |
|||
|
"Once we reach a certain level of mastery, we see there are higher levels and challenges. If we are disciplined and patient, we proceed. At each higher level, new pleasures and insights await us--ones not even suspected when we started out. We can take this as far as we want--in any human activity there is always a higher level to which we can aspire."
Check out my blog here! "You are a degenerate Gaam-balur" http://www.philgalfond.com/lets-make-some-changes/
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
I don't particularly mind the c-bet on the flop because Hero was the original raiser, but once we get called, really the BEST we can hope for is Villain is on a straight draw. Otherwise, he has us crushed. So my answer is check/fold the TURN. You are betting into a player whose range is way ahead of us, and we don't really have any fold equity either. |
|||
|
|
||||
| kmind |
|
|||
| No sir. C/f flop. | |||
|
|
||||
| mrhappy333 |
|
|||
| Is this 6max? | |||
|
3 3 3 I'm only half evil.
|
||||
| Stacks |
|
|||
|
Quote:
And since a bet doesn't get called by worse hands often enough (>50% of the time), as I expect him to fold hands like 3x, 22, 44-88, and since we don't fold out many better hands, as he will likely peel a street with 9x, Tx, JJ+, draws, 99-TT, 33, then a bet is likely incorrect. So say we decide to check here. Sure there is quite a few hands in his range that we are ahead of that he bets (KQ, QJ, 78, 3x, 22}, it's likely -EV to check/call here with 88. I mean we expect him to check back a fair amount of the hands we beat here, such as {44-77, AQ-AK [some % of time], etc), so if the flop checks through we aren't in terrible shape. However, if he bets we are facing aggression OOP with a hand that rarely improves. So against the range he bets when we check, I would likely check/fold 88, and if I felt like check/calling bets here because of his betting frequency when checked to, I would do it with hands that have more equity against the range he bets {9x, etc as we then have 5 outs when behind instead of 2, among other reasons}. So in essence, unless he's a calling station we aren't value betting the flop. Since we aren't getting calls from worse, and better isn't folding, I'm checking. So while we beat a decent portion of his range {worse pps, air, draws, etc}, the majority of the range we beat aren't calling a bet anyways. Because of all of this, I'm likely checking the flop. Fwiw, if we don't expect him to bluff multiple streets we can likely check/call here, but we will be in a load of shitty turn/river spots. |
|||
|
|
||||
| Stacks |
|
|||
|
Also I would just like to note, that if we expect him to be betting often when checked to, we should likely move some of the moderately strong hands that we would bet this flop with {JT,QT, etc} into our check/calling range. This is so that our checking range isn't too transparent, and by doing so, we maximize the EV our checking range makes as a whole. On the flip side, if we expect him to be calling with a wide range here (aka calling station) we should move some of the hands we would check/call here (89, 97, T7, etc) into our bet/folding range. As we can expect him to call with worse often. |
|||
|
|
||||
| kmind |
|
|||
| Ban stacks! | |||
|
|
||||
| Evilpopcorn |
|
|||
|
Great response XxStacksxX ! Say the guy had a very high fold to-cbet then could we check flop and if he checks back then we fire a good turn card ? My understanding with cbets was that hu u should be cbetting alot. My hand 88 OOP is tough to get to showdown but def has showdown value. I thought that enough drawy hands still call me with the T9x board, and cos he was aggro i planned on firing a 2nd barrel on a good turn. Mostly cos if i checked felt he would blow me off all the time on turn with the drawing part of his range. So i am taking from this thread that i cbet a little too much hu OOP. Would this hand have changed if we were IP and he checked it too us ? |
|||
|
|
||||
| Stacks |
|
|||
|
I advise you head to the FR forum and read Renton's "ABCD Theorem" article. I'm by no means an expert at all of this, so my advice on check/folding could just be plain bad. And I would be willing to hear arguments against it. However, if we implement ABCD theorem in this instance, acknowledging that in this situation we have not just a hand, but a range of hands. Hands which we should break down into sub-ranges, which should depending on a number of factors regarding villains range, board texture, etc, determine how we are to play the hand. According to Renton's theorem, 88 seems like it would be a nice fit into the bottom of Range B/Upper C. Which in this instance means we should check/evaluate, and our evaluation pivots on the number of better hands villains bets, and the number of worse hands he bets. If our equity against his betting range > pot odds, we should call. If not we should fold, or possibly consider check/raising as a bluff (but likely not with our exact holding [88 has little equity when called if we c/r]). The above analysis fits in nicely with the previously provided question of M2M, and my subsequent analysis. Basically, every bet should have a purpose. And we group the reasons we bet into two situations.. Either we are betting for Value, which entails that worse hands call often enough (we must have >50% equity against his calling range to vbet). Or we bet as a bluff, which means better hands fold often enough. Given this situation I don't think we meet either case for betting. So I choose not too. Now when we check and are faced with a bet, we must consider his betting range, and how our hand fairs against that range. As I said, if our equity > pot odds we can call. If not, then folding > calling, and unless we expect a raise to fold out better hands often enough to be profitable, we fold. |
|||
|
|
||||
| BlueBull |
|
|||
|
I find this thread enlightening and confusing at the same time... (Im probably going to say stupid stuff below so take into consideration im ASKING not ADVISING and this is after all the beginners forum!) What I dont understand is why we take the approach of just handing this pot to the button on a platter every time. I understand all the reasons for not betting but by not betting we also telling this guy he can abuse us at will. When we check here we absolutely invite him to take the pot down with any 2 cards. And he is pretty much never going to decline that opportunity. I like check check raise "bluffing" here a fair bit (maybe 30% of the time) and check folding the rest is fine. I think it has a reasonable chance of being successful but more importantly its gna keep this guy from abusing us. I prefer it to double barrelling simply because I think this viallin is going to expect us to barrel a lot. Ok.... flame me now! 
|
|||
|
|
||||
| Stacks |
|
|||
|
Quote:
I realize that if we check/fold, we are essentially giving up the pot. However, "I" feel that it is the right play here with this particular hand. Therefore, I feel the right play is to place this hand in our check/folding subrange. Reasons I believe this is correct (until told otherwise by better players), is because I think we can all agree that we are not happy about being called on this flop with 88. The reason we are uncomfortable with getting called is because we don't have the needed equity to valuebet. And as I showed in previous posts here, there is no need to bet hoping he folds, as we beat the majority of the hands he would fold. So a check seems correct here. Now you must consider the other factors as play here. If you legitimately feel that if we check here, villain will bet with 100% of his range, then our 88 hand against the range of hands he is betting will have enough equity to call given the pot odds he gives us. So then calling would be correct. However, without much reads I would assume that isn't the case, and make a fold here. Also keep in mind that if we check/call, and he's the type to barrel the turn and river it could be some very tricky poker on future streets. Now note, what this check/folding of 88 does to our other subranges. Now our betting range on this flop has become stronger, as we aren't bet/folding hands like 88 as often. Our checking range has become wide, which means that while without making further adjustments our checking range is still really transparent. However, depending on the frequency with which he is betting when checked to, by checking hands that are as good as 88 (in relative terms to him betting a wide range), we make it harder, and less profitable, for him to bet a wide range when checked too. As we now have stronger hands (again in relative terms) in our checking range, and can begin calling him down (usually with reads). |
|||
|
|
||||
| BlueBull |
|
|||
|
Makes sense... my post probably actually didnt belong in this thread as my question is not hand specific. Im trying to work out how to counter a regular when we do have sufficient eveidence to believe he is simply abusing his direct position on us (this hand simply stod out as an example of where I think we are forced to fold the best hand quite a lot of the time). And actually some of what you said may still apply to my general question... Thanks. |
|||
|
|
||||
| bigspenda73 |
|
|||
| learn to give up | |||
|
|
||||
| Lucothefish |
|
|||
| To re-open the betting, would b/f be an option if we had a weaker hand than 88, i.e. getting better hands to fold? ducks or missed overs for example. | |||
|
<@d0zer> how will you learn if I don't berate you harshly?
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
1 problem I have with checking the flop is that it seems to me that you are opening yourself up big-time to bluffs on later streets. In other words, there's a 10 and 9 on the flop. Given Button called our raise, do we really believe that this flop hit his range? If we bet and it didn't, we probably take down the pot right then. If we check, well, we're either going to be making loose calls or folding on the turn or on the river. We've given up what was probably our best chance to take down the pot. So I still like the idea of firing one c-bet, seeing if we can't take down the pot with the best hand on the flop, and then stopping (unless we hit something big on the later streets). It's fine to talk about getting worse hands to fold and better hands to call, but when you have a marginal hand, it actually isn't a bad result to get all the worse hands to fold, because you never are really going to know whether you are ahead or behind on later streets and that is going to make you extremely vulnerable to bluffing. The desire not to have worse hands fold is much more important when you have a pretty strong hand than when you have a marginal one. If you c-bet this flop and villain folds, that's a victory. |
|||
|
|
||||
| kmind |
|
|||
| lawdude - we are talking about c/f flop not c/c and then c/f. That'd be like my last line. It's player dependent for sure but we need a c/f range on the flop and this hand is like at the top of that range. | |||
|
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
| I only b/f here against fish | |||
|
|
||||
| kmind |
|
|||
| Ok, lawdude. I won't disagree with you anymore as Stacks wrote some nice posts and specifically mentioned the ABCD theorem by Renton when in actuality my main reasons were from articles/discussions with ISF (and a nice discussion with nutsinho) awhile back about PPs. For some odd reason their advice on similar situations seemed to help my winrate but if you are set on that, by all means use that line. | |||
|
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
Quote:
But my basic thinking-- which may well be less advanced-- is that one of the purposes of c-betting that we don't think about very often is not simply as a sort of a bluff and also to create some value when we hit the flop (so that people may think we are just c-betting and call us), but also because it's basically the best way to ensure you collect when you have something less than top pair and the other players missed the flop. Absent a c-bet, you are going to be in deep water when players start betting on the later streets. But I am quite open to the idea that I may be dead wrong about this and that this strategy constitutes throwing money down a rathole. I've been wrong many times before. 
|
|||
|
|
||||
| sil693 |
|
|||
|
Quote:
[ ] deep water |
|||
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Again, part of the raise and c-bet strategy, heads-up, is to ensure that you actually win pots where the other guy missed the flop. If you don't c-bet the flop and shut down on later streets, you are deciding that you would rather lose pots even where the other guy missed. As I said, if there is some deep strategic reason why this line is right, fine, but it seems to me like you are giving up on the whole reason why you would raise a mid-sized pocket pair pre-flop in the first place. When you have a hand like 8's, you know there are likely to be overcards. You want to be heads up so that the other guy may not hit the overcards and you can bet and take down the pot. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't see the need to shoot for 100% |
|||
|
|
||||
| Stacks |
|
|||
|
First off, the board isn't bad for his range at all. Alot of his preflop calling range has some piece of the board, whether it's TP, 9x, gutshot, gutshot + overs, overs, straight draws, sets, two pair, etc. {AT, KT, QT, JT, T9, T8, T7, 98, 97s, QJ, 67, 87, AQ, AJ, KQ}. Alot of those hands have some piece of the board and aren't all that likely to fold to a single barrel. We expect him to call his made hands believing he is ahead the majority of the time, and we also expect to get floated with overs, and gutshots a good % of the time. So against his range, while we might very well have the best hand on the flop. rarely is he going to be calling with a hand that has little to no equity against us (44-77). I would just like to note, that we aren't just giving up. IF we check/fold the flop we are making a play based off of the action, board texture, villain, etc that we believe is the correct play. This situation could very well be like 3betting QQ preflop OOP, getting called and having a flop of AKx. |
|||
|
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
Quote:
The reason to raise 88 pre-flop is to reduce the number of callers because you are trying to make most of your money either through everyone folding pre-flop (as you note) or through a post-flop c-bet. And most of the time, when you see the flop, there are going to be overcards. That's the reality with 88. Almost half the deck beats you. So you can't be afraid simply because overcards hit-- UNLESS those overcards are going to hit villain's range. And of the possible overcards, 9's and 10's are actually the LEAST likely to hit villain's range if the villain called a pre-flop raise. Would you rather see a flop with T9 or a flop with AK when you have 8's and got one caller to your pre-flop raise? If you are this afraid of overcards with your 8's, then your pre-flop raise is going to be -EV unless you have a boatload of pre-flop fold equity. But in most games, you basically have two choices with middle pocket pairs-- play them very aggressively to get them heads up with less fear of overcards, or setmine in multi-way pots and get out if anything bad comes on the flop. |
|||
|
|
||||
| Stacks |
|
|||
|
This isn't a matter of being afraid. This isn't a matter of just giving him the pot everytime. It's a matter of whether a bet is correct or not, and I don't think it is. You seem to keep addressing how we should be more fearless of the overcards, and bet anyways.. Yet you have not mentioned what a bet would accomplish besides winning the pot when we are already ahead. It doesn't matter if we are currently ahead of his range on this flop. When we bet, we manipulate his range. We are no longer dealing with his preflop calling range. We are now dealing with his flop cbet calling range, which we are likely not doing well enough against to bet (depending on his calling range obv). So since we don't have enough equity to cbet for value, and better hands don't fold often enough, it seems like a clear check. Don't think of it as giving the pot to him just because we check. If villain is betting his entire range when we check here, then we likely have enough equity to call his bet. It's true that will put us into a shitload of gay turn/river spots, but it would likely be a +EV flop call. However, that's likely not the case, and he will probably check back the majority of his marginal made hands with SD (44-77, 9x, weak Tx) with the intention of either getting to showdown or inducing bluffs on later streets. And he will likely bet his made hands and air. Once again, if against his betting range our equity > pot odds, a call would be correct. |
|||
|
|
||||
| Stacks |
|
|||
| Also, you do realize that if we had 88 on an AK3r board, the likelihood of us folding out better hands increase, as we would expect most villains to toss 99-QQ. Also the number of gutshots, straight draws, overcards he could have would be reduced dramatically. | |||
|
|
||||
| bigspenda73 |
|
|||
| BUT WHAT IF HE BLUFFS US OFF OUR HAND BECAUSE WE CHECKED?!?!?!@??@$?@!$?!?! | |||
|
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
Quote:
When you have a hand that isn't really very good, getting worse hands to fold is actually a perfectly good result, because you aren't actually going to be able to extract value on later streets-- rather you are increasing the likelihood of being bluffed off your hand. Part of the point of a c-bet is precisely to get worse hands to fold so that we don't have to worry about figuring out whether our marginal hand (ace-king, middle pair, whatever) is ahead on later streets. So if you decide that you aren't going to c-bet because you see the 2 overcards which are LEAST likely to help the villain, then I think you are playing a bit too scared of overcards, you can't do that when you have 88 heads up. Most of the time, even with 2 overcards on the flop, villain will have missed. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
I didn't say our plan was to make money on set mining our plan was to make money by getting everyone to fold pre or by flopping good (flopping a good flop to bluff is also flopping good obv) JJ3 is a good flop for our hand T9x or JTx are bad flops for our hand Axx is a good flop for our range and we'll bet/fold it every time K94 is also a good flop to b/f I think when villain calls preflop in position he has a hand like: 76, 87, 98, T9, JT, QJ, AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, 22-TT if he had AK/AQ/JJ+ he's more likely to 3b so T9x is the SECOND WORST flop we can hope for because he either has two pair, oesd, two overcards + gutshot or just two overcards, the only flop that's worse is JTx WORSE, he might just call with KJ on the flop and fire at it on the turn and there's nothing we can do about it I don't agree that if we c/f flops with two overcards it will make our raise preflop EV- first of all: we're going to flop an overpair some % of the time and people with overcards will peel one street second of all: when there's one overcard we're a lot more safe than when there's two lastly: we don't get called on a K94r flop as often because there are no draws so it's EV+ to b/f the more drawy the flop, the worse off we are it's not the "overcard" consideration that's important here, but how often we get called we probably get called more than half of the time on this flop because the only cards that fold are 22-88 and 67 |
|||
|
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Thus AK4 is an awful flop heads up with 8's. T93, not so much. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
uhh, wrong AK4 is a great flop for our hand T93 is a terrible flop for our hand What does he do with T9, 98, JT, QJ, QT on T93? he obviously doesn't fold which hands does he fold on T93 that he doesn't fold on AK4? maybe Axs, that's about it but the vast majority of his "two broadway cards" hit the T93 flop hard, in fact harder than AK4 because he might fold gutshots on AK4 tl;dr version: T93 bad, AK4 good |
|||
|
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Maybe I am wrong about this, but I don't really think you have nearly as many players calling pre-flop raises heads up with mid-range connecting cards. I think they are calling with an ace (other than AK) or with KQ or KJ or QJ, as well as with pocket pairs other than AA and KK (including some that we beat). Put simply, I assume that people call raises heads-up with the types of hands that play well heads up (big cards and pocket pairs) rather than the types of hands that play better in multi-way pots (moderate connectors). You really think that people generally play 98o heads-up against a raise? |
|||
|
|
||||
| sil693 |
|
|||
|
whats all this heads up stuff about? villain calls from the BTN - so it not like he's calling 100% of the time to play a heads up pot is it. if either of the blinds are loose it makes it more likely his range is stuff like 89 etc imo. also, back to the cbetting issue: Quote:
|
|||
|
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
Quote:
2. We don't have to c-bet 100 percent of the time. We c-bet when there is a significant probability that the flop missed villain's range. And we c-bet because unless you hit a set or a big draw or have very low cards on the board, you really don't want to play too deep into a hand with 88. You want to take the pot down, even if all you are doing is getting worse hands to fold. |
|||
|
|
||||
| Stacks |
|
|||
|
Quote:
You have to see how this is terrible. Not to mention when we are called, we have very little equity to improve as we have 2 outs when behind. And we would much rather cbet a hand like 97s or something if we were going to cbet such a weak hand, as then we have 5 outs to improve + the chance of a bdfd/bdsd. Quote:
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
but he's never going to call with A5o unless he's a huge fish so really we're talking about like 40 hand combos (A2s-AJs) that he calls with and maybe 20 small suited connectors and gappers (add hands like T8s and crap) but if he calls with both offsuit and suited broadways like JT, QJ, QT that's 48 hands he's c/f on a AK4 flop (he only has 4 outs in his mind) that he's definitely calling on a T93 flop so AK4 hits 40 hands harder T93 hits 64 hands harder (he c/f 76s, but calls with the rest of his suited connectors) |
|||
|
|
||||
| Renton |
|
|||
|
on paper, this flop is a c/f, but i don't especially mind a bet vs some 10nl donk. He might call with any pair, any draw, most ace highs, and kq. Betting also shuts down his ability to bluff you out other than raising the flop which players at this level aren't likely to do as a bluff. |
|||
|
|
||||
| Renton |
|
|||
|
the main reason we give up in spots like this is a) because we are afraid we'll face cbet face exploitation by bluff raising and floating (NOT AN ISSUE AT 10NL) b) we expect people to check down worse pairs and ace highs mostly (PPL AT 10NL JUST SEE U CHECK AND ARE LIKE "LOL BET" NO MATTER WHAT THEY HAVE) so yeah, definitely bet here, you can c/f like A7 if you want. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I mean even NL100 regs sometimes have 60% fold to cbet so his number is a bit on the low side |
|||
|
|
||||
| Evilpopcorn |
|
|||
|
What are ranges for the fold to cbet ? Obviously this is dependant on the playing style. What is the expected fold to Cbet for say a 17/15, or say a 25/22 ? Just curious at what numbers we start abusing them with our lines focused on the folding too little or folding too much. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
||||
| Evilpopcorn |
|
|||
|
Hmmm being thinking for a while now i should add cold calling onto my HUD. Are villian limp/call and cold ranges normally pretty much the same ? Lots of boardway cards, soooooted aces and small/medium pairs. This would be a general cold calling range i would assign to an unknown. Now at what cold calling percentage can we drop the worse broadways, maybe the smaller pairs etc ? I would assume that all villian have their own cold calling "style" also so player notes are important too. Just some of the thoughts rambling around in my head EDIT : Sorry for kinda hijacking my own thread a bit now |
|||
|
|
||||
| bigspenda73 |
|
|||
|
Alright, my thoughts in a huge mindfuck of a thread, I think you'll find a 2/3psb slightly +EV against the right opponents on these board textures, renton described a few. There are ppl who are going to bet every time we check, which most would then deduce it's great to c/c, but it's not really b/c we have to play some OOP guess-game with a lot of shitty turn cards. We've taken the initiative PF so I don't mind c-betting here but I think the turn will be a safe c/f, expecting this player to check behind a lot of their unimproved draws and then maybe picking off a bluff on the end although I'd still c/f the river. I'll agree with stacks/iopq that this is not a great board to continuation bet on, but it's not the worst. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
also you have to keep in mind good players will cold-call the most on the button and almost not at all from CO and earlier in fact when someone cold-calls in like MP they usually have a pocket pair |
|||
|
|
||||
| Stacks |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
||||
| LawDude |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
||||
 |
| Latest Poker News | |
| KoRnholio |
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
|
| According to an email sent out by Mark Bryan, a gaming analyst at Merrill Lynch, the Australian government plans to legalize online poker sometime in the next six to 12 months. This move will coincide ... | |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:04 PM.
|
|
All content © FlopTurnRiver.com |
Advertising |
Partners |
Testimonials |
T&C |
Contact Us |
FTR News & Press |
Site Map |
Search FTR
Full Tilt | Titan Poker | UltimateBet | Poker Stars | Ladbrokes Bonus | Sportsbook | Cake Poker Play Texas Holdem Online, Online Texas Holdem Strategy, & Poker Forum |
 |
| This is not a gambling website. |
