I think I did well... what am I missing ;)

I'm pretty happy with the way this went. So I think it's probably the right hand to get feedback on because I'm probably not ready to see my own mistakes when I'm feeling chuffed.

Villain is passive; probably a bit loose.

My thought process was basically an interpretation of the bets as the following conversation:

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

CO ($4.09)
Button ($3.28)
SB ($5.79)
BB ($5.61)
UTG ($3.27)
UTG+1 ($15.27)
MP1 =Villain ($8.72)
MP2 ($6.09)
Hero ($3.44)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with K, A. SB posts a blind of $0.02.
UTG calls $0.04, 1 fold, Villain) raises to $0.08, 1 fold, Hero raises to $0.25, 4 folds, UTG folds, Villain raises to $0.42, Hero calls $0.17.

Villain: "I have a nice hand, it's so nice I went to all the trouble of clicking on the minbet button".
Hero: "Behold! I have both a nice hand and the ability to type my own numbers. Tremble in fear!"
Villain: "Shan't. I've just found the place for the typing-in-thing. So have at thee!"
Hero: "Okay, let's see how you like it after the flop."

Flop: ($0.94) 8, A, 7 (2 players)
Villain bets $0.04, Hero calls $0.04.

Villain: "Oooh. Erm. I don't have an ace. Do you have an ace?"
Hero: "Who, me? Nah".

Turn: ($1.02) 8 (2 players)
Villain checks, Hero bets $1, Villain raises to $2, Hero raises 0.98 (All-in), Villain calls $0.98.

Villain: "*snigger*, Oh geez mister, I HOPE YOU DON'T BET"
Hero: "Well, if you're sure you don't want to bet, here you go!"
Villain: "Aha, surprise! I was fooling. I do have a good hand!"
Hero: "Oooh what a shock. Well, I've got another dollar almost, want that too?"
Villain: "Yes! Yes! You feel into my trap... erm... twice."

River: ($5) 2 (2 players)

Final Pot: $5

Results in white below:
Villain has Qc Qd (two pair, queens and eights).
Hero has Kh As (two pair, aces and eights).
Outcome: Hero wins $5.

If villain had flipped over AA I'd have had to revise this script somewhat.
If it had been A7, I'd not be that surprised given some of what I see on these tables. (Example. I bet AQ at 6xBB and got called by J4sooted who then went on to call my flop bet because he hit a 4).

All that said, I can empathise with villain. I think the reason I could see what she was doing is because I'd play it almost the same way (only better raise pf and stronger c-bet).

What tips for us about playing these hands?

Oh as an addendum: Villain bought back in and I'm guessing was on a bit of tilt or was desperate for me to pay her back:

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

BB ($4)
UTG ($6.52)
UTG+1 ($3.96)
MP1 ($3.55)
MP2 ($4.88)
MP3 ($18.13)
CO =Villain ($4.94)
Button ($6.64)
Hero ($6.74)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A, Q. Hero posts a blind of $0.02.
UTG calls $0.04, 2 folds, MP2 calls $0.04, 1 fold, CO =Villain) calls $0.04, 1 fold, Hero (poster) raises to $0.23, 1 fold, UTG folds, MP2 folds, CO =#A500AF(Villain)/ calls $0.21.

Flop: ($0.62) 6, 9, 7 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.3, Villain calls $0.30.

Turn: ($1.22) A (2 players)
Hero bets $1, Villain calls $1.

River: ($3.22) A (2 players)
Hero bets $3, Villain calls $3.

Final Pot: $9.22

Results in white below:
Villain has Qh 6c (two pair, aces and sixes).
Hero has As Qd (three of a kind, aces).
Outcome: Hero wins $9.22.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Not steaming.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

CO ($4.09)
Button ($3.28)
SB ($5.79)
BB ($5.61)
UTG ($3.27)
UTG+1 ($15.27)
MP1 =Villain ($8.72)
MP2 ($6.09)
Hero ($3.44)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with K, A. SB posts a blind of $0.02.
UTG calls $0.04, 1 fold, Villain) raises to $0.08, 1 fold, Hero raises to $0.25, 4 folds, UTG folds, Villain raises to $0.42, Hero calls $0.17.

This seems fine.

Flop: ($0.94) 8, A, 7 (2 players)
Villain bets $0.04, Hero calls $0.04.

Villain: "Oooh. Erm. I don't have an ace. Do you have an ace?"
Hero: "Who, me? Nah".

He bet the minimum into a pot of almost a dollar, thats like about 1/20th the pot. There is a flush draw on the board, you need to raise this here closer to the size of a real bet, Id probably raise to $0.50.

Turn: ($1.02) 8 (2 players)
Villain checks, Hero bets $1, Villain raises to $2, Hero raises 0.98 (All-in), Villain calls $0.98.

River: ($5) 2 (2 players)

Final Pot: $5

This is fine as well.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

BB ($4)
UTG ($6.52)
UTG+1 ($3.96)
MP1 ($3.55)
MP2 ($4.88)
MP3 ($18.13)
CO =Villain ($4.94)
Button ($6.64)
Hero ($6.74)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A, Q. Hero posts a blind of $0.02.
UTG calls $0.04, 2 folds, MP2 calls $0.04, 1 fold, CO =Villain) calls $0.04, 1 fold, Hero (poster) raises to $0.23, 1 fold, UTG folds, MP2 folds, CO =#A500AF(Villain)/ calls $0.21.

Fine

Flop: ($0.62) 6, 9, 7 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.3, Villain calls $0.30.

If you are going to Cbet, which I would here, then it should be stronger than that. Depending on villain this may be alright, but typically Id bet around $0.50 here

Turn: ($1.22) A (2 players)
Hero bets $1, Villain calls $1.

River: ($3.22) A (2 players)
Hero bets $3, Villain calls $3.

Final Pot: $9.22

You got the two best cards for your hand here, and continued the aggression, good.

Thanks for the input Andy.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

He bet the minimum into a pot of almost a dollar, thats like about 1/20th the pot. There is a flush draw on the board, you need to raise this here closer to the size of a real bet, Id probably raise to $0.50.

Meh. I'd have bet the handsomer of my two buttocks that villain had a PP. So flush draw is reeeeealy unlikely.
But even in the statistically unlikely event that my one opponent has a flush draw; they're only 2:1 to hit it.

A big splash scares off the fish. I reckon.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

Villain: "Oooh. Erm. I don't have an ace. Do you have an ace?"

I'm inclined to add, Villain: "I have a flush/straight draw and want to see a free card" but given the preflop action that's totally unlikely. A slowplay here seems like a solid way to extract value, although betting would be fine too.

Villain: "Yes! Yes! You feel into my trap... erm... twice."

I don't understand why you are berating your opponent so much. He should have known you had the ace (or KK) from the preflop action so it's stupid.. but he wasn't setting any traps, he simply misread you and thought you didn't have the ace and were attempting a bluff.

If villain had flipped over AA I'd have had to revise this script somewhat.

Very unlikely.. for one he'd have probably pushed preflop.

If it had been A7, I'd not be that surprised

I would.. if he hits 2 pair on the flop, he won't be betting $0.04 methinks.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Not steaming.

Hm, what is there to say here? He tilted and stuck to his bottom pair.. ehm.. I mean, it's super obvious from your play you missed the flop and hit on the turn.. weak half-hearted c-bet, and then an ace shows up and suddenly you gain the confidence to almost bet the pot?

Originally Posted by Anosmic

Meh. I'd have bet the handsomer of my two buttocks that villain had a PP. So flush draw is reeeeealy unlikely.
But even in the statistically unlikely event that my one opponent has a flush draw; they're only 2:1 to hit it.

A big splash scares off the fish. I reckon.

Originally Posted by jackvance

I'm inclined to add, Villain: "I have a flush/straight draw and want to see a free card" but given the preflop action that's totally unlikely. A slowplay here seems like a solid way to extract value, although betting would be fine too.

Lets remember what stakes these are, its $4nl. Even at these stakes, yes, a 3bet does limit somebody's range, but not to exclude suited cards. At $25nl you see less of it, but at $10nl I recall seeing players 3 bet with suited connecters all the time, hell, they didnt even have to be connected. Anyways, I dont think KQs, KJs, KTs, or QJs are out of villains range here and because of this I am raising that flop. A big splash may "scare off the fish," but no splash at all gives them the odds to draw out. Even if you arent worried about a flush draw, you should still be raising for value when somebody bets 1/20th the pot.

I thought the commentary was quite the hilarity.

I honestly wonder if the Villian would have done the exact same thing had you reraised him on the flop in the first example. I've seen it many times myself where the pre-flop raiser will minbet the flop than aggressively reraise your reasonable bet.

As far as the second example, for every time that happens to me and the Villiam flips Q6o, they flip T8 for the nut straight.

Seriously though, the key question is, would you have played 99 (or any other hand that becomes a monster on the flop) the same way. Reraising that big with 99 maybe outside your range, though. Bear in mind that, if the players at your table are paying attention, the next time you c-bet a flop like that they may reraise big.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

Lets remember what stakes these are, its $4nl. Even at these stakes, yes, a 3bet does limit somebody's range, but not to exclude suited cards. At $25nl you see less of it, but at $10nl I recall seeing players 3 bet with suited connecters all the time, hell, they didnt even have to be connected.

I've never seen this at 10NL except maybe from a guy on a total tilt. Most fish simply never reraise you unless they get a boner from how great their hand is.

Anyways, I dont think KQs, KJs, KTs, or QJs are out of villains range here and because of this I am raising that flop. A big splash may "scare off the fish," but no splash at all gives them the odds to draw out. Even if you arent worried about a flush draw, you should still be raising for value when somebody bets 1/20th the pot.

Not necessarily. A 1/20th pot bet is basically a check. This equivalent to check/check, so you're slowplaying your pretty obvious 'hit'. The reasoning is that in the unlikely case of a flush draw, there's still only 1/5 he's gonna actually hit - which can be a calculated risk you take (since he probably isn't even on the flush draw) when you slowplay. If he value bet the flop, Villain might have folded. Now he got a stack. Different strategies. This flop with this preflop action justifies a slowplay in my book.

Originally Posted by jackvance

Villain: "Yes! Yes! You feel into my trap... erm... twice."

I don't understand why you are berating your opponent so much. He should have known you had the ace (or KK) from the preflop action so it's stupid.. but he wasn't setting any traps, he simply misread you and thought you didn't have the ace and were attempting a bluff.

Berating is fun.
No, but seriously it's not meant to be too harsh. As I say, I can see myself in that position.
Possibly Villain marked me down as bluffing. But I kinda suspect that final call was just as the realisation hit that there was a problem, but you'd have to be REALLY sure to fold this pot to a 0.98 raise.

I think I'd berate more if they'd folded.

If it had been A7, I'd not be that surprised

I would.. if he hits 2 pair on the flop, he won't be betting $0.04 methinks.

I dunno. Oddly enough they got another QQ 15 minutes later and got a flop of QQJ and bet $0.04

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Not steaming.

Hm, what is there to say here? He tilted and stuck to his bottom pair.. ehm.. I mean, it's super obvious from your play you missed the flop and hit on the turn.. weak half-hearted c-bet, and then an ace shows up and suddenly you gain the confidence to almost bet the pot?

It's only "super obvious" because you know what my hole cards are.
It may be a bad strategy but as long as I have only one opponent in a hand I'll often c-bet around 50% of the pot and then if they call I'll go up to a more pot-sized bet on the turn... basically whatever I think I can get them to call.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

No, but seriously it's not meant to be too harsh. As I say, I can see myself in that position.
Possibly Villain marked me down as bluffing. But I kinda suspect that final call was just as the realisation hit that there was a problem, but you'd have to be REALLY sure to fold this pot to a 0.98 raise.

Hehe.. I agree whole-heartedly there. I've had many such moments myself too and I always call and always lose :P

It's only "super obvious" because you know what my hole cards are.

Heh, you may think that but I've seen this betting pattern so often that I know what it means. If you didn't hit on the turn, you have either continued with a weaker bluff, or checked, am I right? It's not too uncommon in my games that I know what my opponents have because these betting patterns tip me off

And if I can already easily see these things, the higher stakes people probably will too.. I think if you move up you'd need to mask your hand better. Generally, it doesn't matter how you bet, if it's always the same then aware players will pick this up.. if you don't realize this it might be very frustrating when you always get caught with the worse hand against some people and you have no clue why.

Also, some betting patterns are really standard amongst the 10NL and 20NL crowd, so after a while you don't really need to observe a player for too long anymore, just 1-2 hands to justify your intuition is enough.

It may be a bad strategy but as long as I have only one opponent in a hand I'll often c-bet around 50% of the pot and then if they call I'll go up to a more pot-sized bet on the turn... basically whatever I think I can get them to call.

You want them to call your c-bets? :O

Originally Posted by jackvance

I've never seen this at 10NL except maybe from a guy on a total tilt. Most fish simply never reraise you unless they get a boner from how great their hand is.

Youve never seen somebody 3bet with less than a pocketpair? I find that really hard to believe.

Not necessarily. A 1/20th pot bet is basically a check. This equivalent to check/check, so you're slowplaying your pretty obvious 'hit'. The reasoning is that in the unlikely case of a flush draw, there's still only 1/5 he's gonna actually hit - which can be a calculated risk you take (since he probably isn't even on the flush draw) when you slowplay. If he value bet the flop, Villain might have folded. Now he got a stack. Different strategies. This flop with this preflop action justifies a slowplay in my book.

You would slowplay this flop? I cant imagine its correct to slowplay TPTK on a board with a flush draw. If checked to me, there is no way Im checking behind here.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

Youve never seen somebody 3bet with less than a pocketpair? I find that really hard to believe.

You said it was not uncommon on 10NL that they 3-bet with simple suited connectors or even any two suited cards. Haven't seen that at unibet no, except with the rare total retard/donk or total tilt, but for most players it's AA/KK/QQ/AK. The more crazy players can do this too with any pocket pair, and they tend to push all-in in that case.

You would slowplay this flop? I cant imagine its correct to slowplay TPTK on a board with a flush draw. If checked to me, there is no way Im checking behind here.

I would probably yes. It's risk assessment. I think it's unlikely he has a flush draw, and on top of that unlikely he'll hit (1/6).. ofcourse he might, and then I'll pay him off, but to me this unlikely event is minor compared to the potential benefit of slowplaying my ace and getting more value later rather than advertising I have the ace for a bigger chance to get no more value (but he didn't get to chase a possible flush draw!).

I'm saying ofcourse this is what I'd do.. you do as you like ofcourse.

I understand what you are saying, but is there really that big of a benefit to slowplaying here? Yes, hero got paid off here, but who is to say he wouldnt have anyways? Lets assume the turn card completes the flush draw, would you lead with a PSB and then call his push? As played the turn paired the board and then hero lead with a PSB, as the villain this would have to worry me. I can see arguments for slowplaying on a dry board with a hand like a set or better, but not much less than that and especially on a board with a flush draw.

Yes, hero got paid off here, but who is to say he wouldnt have anyways?

Possibly, but from experience, some people really only put money on the table if they sense weakness first.. if you're up against that kind of person then a slowplay will work and a value bet won't. Ofcourse maybe he is thinking (hoping) his QQ is good anyway, regardless of the flopped ace, and then he'll pay off anyway. Dunno.

Lets assume the turn card completes the flush draw, would you lead with a PSB and then call his push?

Let's put Villain on the range of AA/KK/QQ/JJ/AK/AQ. That's 112 different possible hands, of which 16 are suited and of those 16 suited, 4 are in the suit of the board. So that's like a 4/112 chance or 3.6%. Ofcourse possible. And yes it's low but in the long run, if you're always gonna pay these off, you're running dead. But the thing is: then he has only 18% to complete his flush on the turn. This makes my total risk 0.68%.. ok, well, this is a chance I am willing to take.

As played the turn paired the board and then hero lead with a PSB, as the villain this would have to worry me. I can see arguments for slowplaying on a dry board with a hand like a set or better, but not much less than that and especially on a board with a flush draw.

Seeing how abysmal the chance is to actually run into a flush here, I'd say a slowplay is on average better to extract more value here. He is scared you have the ace, and with good reason.. heavy preflop action usually indicates an ace or a high pp.. so his QQ isn't looking too great anymore on that board.

And if you are really scared of the flush, you can still fold to heavy aggression if another club turns up. I don't think I would though, I feel it's -EV due to hand ranges here.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

I'm pretty happy with the way this went. So I think it's probably the right hand to get feedback on because I'm probably not ready to see my own mistakes when I'm feeling chuffed.

Villain is passive; probably a bit loose.

My thought process was basically an interpretation of the bets as the following conversation:

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

CO ($4.09)
Button ($3.28)
SB ($5.79)
BB ($5.61)
UTG ($3.27)
UTG+1 ($15.27)
MP1 =Villain ($8.72)
MP2 ($6.09)
Hero ($3.44)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with K, A. SB posts a blind of $0.02.
UTG calls $0.04, 1 fold, Villain) raises to $0.08, 1 fold, Hero raises to $0.25, 4 folds, UTG folds, Villain raises to $0.42, Hero calls $0.17.

Villain: "I have a nice hand, it's so nice I went to all the trouble of clicking on the minbet button".
Hero: "Behold! I have both a nice hand and the ability to type my own numbers. Tremble in fear!"
Villain: "Shan't. I've just found the place for the typing-in-thing. So have at thee!"
Hero: "Okay, let's see how you like it after the flop."

I hate talking online while playing.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

Flop: ($0.94) 8, A, 7 (2 players)
Villain bets $0.04, Hero calls $0.04.

Villain: "Oooh. Erm. I don't have an ace. Do you have an ace?"
Hero: "Who, me? Nah".

He was putting a block bet on you maybe??? I would've raised it to like $0.65 to go to avoid flush draw.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

Turn: ($1.02) 8 (2 players)
Villain checks, Hero bets $1, Villain raises to $2, Hero raises 0.98 (All-in), Villain calls $0.98.

Villain: "*snigger*, Oh geez mister, I HOPE YOU DON'T BET"
Hero: "Well, if you're sure you don't want to bet, here you go!"
Villain: "Aha, surprise! I was fooling. I do have a good hand!"
Hero: "Oooh what a shock. Well, I've got another dollar almost, want that too?"
Villain: "Yes! Yes! You feel into my trap... erm... twice."

Your intial bet was too much. Again 2/3 pot size bet of around $0.70 would be good enough. A trips would push here, but unlikely with a re-raise pre-flop from villian.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

River: ($5) 2 (2 players)

Final Pot: $5

If he still called you here as I suggested, again I would put about 1/2 pot size bet here fearing only A8 or AA. Knowing the odds of him holding AA with the other 2 Aces known is highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

[Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

BB ($4)
UTG ($6.52)
UTG+1 ($3.96)
MP1 ($3.55)
MP2 ($4.88)
MP3 ($18.13)
CO =Villain ($4.94)
Button ($6.64)
Hero ($6.74)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A, Q. Hero posts a blind of $0.02.
UTG calls $0.04, 2 folds, MP2 calls $0.04, 1 fold, CO =Villain) calls $0.04, 1 fold, Hero (poster) raises to $0.23, 1 fold, UTG folds, MP2 folds, CO =#A500AF(Villain)/ calls $0.21.

Flop: ($0.62) 6, 9, 7 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.30, Villain calls $0.30.

Up to this point everything looks good except should've checked on the flop. Don't be too aggressive. He called your pre-flop raise and your position doesn't warrant a defensive bet. If I was Villian and you checked to me, I would've put a 1/2 pot size bet into it to avoid a x8/xT/x5 from calling. You checks and he checks and all looks good. He bet over 1/3 pot size and its auto-fold.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

Turn: ($1.22) A (2 players)
Hero bets $1, Villain calls $1.

OK, now you hit TPTK. His call on the flop showed me he hit something. All cards are rainbow. Does he have a Ace as well? 1/3 pot size bet here works.

Originally Posted by Anosmic

River: ($3.22) A (2 players)
Hero bets $3, Villain calls $3.

Now you hit trips, time for a blocking bet since he called you all the way to the river. Pot is $3.22.... put in a bet of $0.75 (Act like your weak, but not too weak). He either calls (likely if passive), folds (unlikely at such a low bet), or reraises (what you hope for and likely if aggressive). You know you have the best hand and you want him to pay for it and not fold. Obviously he was a donk from the start but it appears you too (like I have found with myself) are being too aggressive post flop. If you're losing money overall, it's in your post flop aggression.

Sorry to say Stagemn, but I feel you are giving bad advice here, so I'd like to point out my problems with it. You're free to critique this ofcourse.

Originally Posted by Stagemn

He was putting a block bet on you maybe??? I would've raised it to like $0.65 to go to avoid flush draw.

This is not a blocking bet, and a blocking bet is only really applicable on the river when there are no more cards coming. And if you were to raise here, it would be to value bet, not to price out a flush draw.

The reason is as I mentionned above.. the chances of running into a flush here are <1%. To give you an idea, do you slowplay a set when your opponent has TP or overpair? Because you're giving him a 4% chance to hit an overset in that case. This is way more than the chance to a flush here.

Your intial bet was too much. Again 2/3 pot size bet of around $0.70 would be good enough. A trips would push here, but unlikely with a re-raise pre-flop from villian.

I agree here, but have to make the side comment that in the line of his earlier slowplay, he is mainly "faking a bluff" here so $1 is good too.

Up to this point everything looks good except should've checked on the flop. Don't be too aggressive. He called your pre-flop raise and your position doesn't warrant a defensive bet.

Don't understand this comment.. he's making a pretty standard c-bet. If you don't do this (occasionally), you are giving away your real hand strength way too easily.. plus you have fold equity from a c-bet.

He bet over 1/3 pot size and its auto-fold.

You'll sure be bluffed out easily if you consistently play like this.

OK, now you hit TPTK. His call on the flop showed me he hit something. All cards are rainbow. Does he have a Ace as well? 1/3 pot size bet here works.

Why would you ever bet 1/3 pot, aside from a blocking bet on the river? Basically a value bet means you'll bet as high as possible so as long as weaker hands will call. Since his opponent was likely on tilt, I'd say this play is more than waranted.

Now you hit trips, time for a blocking bet since he called you all the way to the river. Pot is $3.22.... put in a bet of $0.75 (Act like your weak, but not too weak).

I really think you misunderstand what a blocking bet is. A blocking is when you don't know where you stand on the river.. not when you KNOW you're ahead lol.

What you are suggesting here is a slowplay, and not an advised one since villain has shown a tendency to not let go of their hand.

Originally Posted by jackvance

Let's put Villain on the range of AA/KK/QQ/JJ/AK/AQ. That's 112 different possible hands, of which 16 are suited and of those 16 suited, 4 are in the suit of the board. So that's like a 4/112 chance or 3.6%.

.....

And if you are really scared of the flush, you can still fold to heavy aggression if another club turns up. I don't think I would though, I feel it's -EV due to hand ranges here.

I still cant help but think this is way way too tight a range, especially at $4nl. The lowest Ive played was $10nl, and even there I think this is way too tight a range. Id like to hear some other opinions on ranges to put somebody on who 3bet preflop in $4nl.

Originally Posted by jackvance

Sorry to say Stagemn, but I feel you are giving bad advice here, so I'd like to point out my problems with it. You're free to critique this ofcourse.

I was actually typing up a post to say almost the same thing as you said here. Stage, in another thread you said something similar about a blocking bet, I agree with Jack in saying that I think you misunderstand the term. He explained it fairly accurately here, and I gave another explanation in the other thread.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

I still cant help but think this is way way too tight a range, especially at $4nl. The lowest Ive played was $10nl, and even there I think this is way too tight a range. Id like to hear some other opinions on ranges to put somebody on who 3bet preflop in $4nl.

Ok, if they're all 3-betting with their suited anything then maybe, but I'd say even on the lower stakes there is still a decent range to put a 3-bet on. Also remember the difference with being up against 1 person and being up against 5 opponents in a limped pot.. in the latter case the chance a guy has a flush draw is 5x higher ofcourse.

But ok, I'll loosen the range. AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/AK/AQ/AJ/KQ/QJ and some higher suited ATs/KTs/QTs/JTs. That's 252 hands, of which 72 are suited and 18 of those are in the suit of the board. That's still only 7.1%.. and then he'll hit his flush 18% of the time, so only a 1.3% risk.

Compare this with the 4% risk you take to get busted out when you slowplay a set to TP/overpair and it's still 3x less risky.


EDIT:
With the risk of losing everyone, here's some more math. Let's say your opp's range is "any two suited cards". That means there's a roughly 25% chance he has a flush draw on a board with 2 clubs. The chance that if he does have the flush draw, he'll hit it on the turn is still only 4.5%!

This might seem counter-intuitive, but remember that this is only on the turn.. by the river this risk has roughly doubled to 9%. But the most important factor is the amount of people. The reason why you flushes/flush draws more often in practice than these odds seem to suggest is because there are typically a lot more people in a limped pot, so the odds vastly increase that one of em is on a draw.

Originally Posted by Stagemn

I hate talking online while playing.

You are kidding right?
I mean. You're shaking my faith in humanity here, mate.

He was putting a block bet on you maybe??? I would've raised it to like $0.65 to go to avoid flush draw.

A) As we've been saying here in this thread: most of us don't beleive the flush draw matters.
B) I think a raise would cause a fold. I may be wrong, but I thunked it, I think it and I wanted a bigger payoff.

Up to this point everything looks good except should've checked on the flop. Don't be too aggressive.

Pfft. Check AQ?
I mean really?

Now you hit trips, time for a blocking bet since he called you all the way to the river. Pot is $3.22.... put in a bet of $0.75

What? Why?
You say "You ahve the best hand and want him to pay for it" and yet you'd bet a measly $0.75?
I was fairly sure I'd get a call and so I bet the Villain's stack (bar a couple of cents).

Even without having any reads on the villain, there's good evidence that they don't believe in our ace. So we're probably going to get more for this.

As for post-flop aggression PT has me classified as "Passive" post-flop; so I'm trying to get MORE aggressive, not less (not that bet SIZE is what decides aggression).

Originally Posted by jackvance

With the risk of losing everyone, here's some more math. Let's say your opp's range is "any two suited cards". That means there's a roughly 25% chance he has a flush draw on a board with 2 clubs. The chance that if he does have the flush draw, he'll hit it on the turn is still only 4.5%!

This might seem counter-intuitive, but remember that this is only on the turn.. by the river this risk has roughly doubled to 9%. But the most important factor is the amount of people. The reason why you flushes/flush draws more often in practice than these odds seem to suggest is because there are typically a lot more people in a limped pot, so the odds vastly increase that one of em is on a draw.

I agree with what you are saying and dont think a flush draw is incredibly likely, Im just trying to say that it is possible. According to the fundamental theorem of poker [paraphrasing], you lose money when your opponent wouldnt play his hand differently if he could see your cards. If he had a flush draw, he wouldnt play it differently because he would be getting paid off if it hit.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

I agree with what you are saying and dont think a flush draw is incredibly likely, Im just trying to say that it is possible. According to the fundamental theorem of poker [paraphrasing], you lose money when your opponent wouldnt play his hand differently if he could see your cards. If he had a flush draw, he wouldnt play it differently because he would be getting paid off if it hit.

Hm I don't really understand that. But here is the way I see it:

If I were to play this hand 200 times, and my opponent would be in the looser range I posted above.. then if I totally disregard any flush draws here, I'm gonna lose my stack 9 times b/c of the flush. Now, if slowplaying in this scenario means I can take 60 stacks instead of 40, I'm still ahead - in the long run, which is what matters - right?..

Originally Posted by jackvance

If I were to play this hand 200 times, and my opponent would be in the looser range I posted above.. then if I totally disregard any flush draws here, I'm gonna lose my stack 9 times b/c of the flush. Now, if slowplaying in this scenario means I can take 60 stacks instead of 40, I'm still ahead - in the long run, which is what matters - right?..

If it means you can take 60 stacks instead of 40, then yes, this is the better play, but I dont think thats accurate. On a board like this what hand is going to pay you off later on that wont right now? To slow play you need a hand that can allow other hands to catch up, here if they catch up they will likely be ahead. Most turn cards wont drastically improve their hand to make them go from wanting to fold to a flop bet, to wanting to lose a stack on the urn, especially without improving enough to beat us.

you lose money when your opponent wouldnt play his hand differently if he could see your cards.

I haven't read it, but, I would assume that the other way is true also? You would win money if you could see your opponents card and wouldn't play any differently. Or is there more to it than that. what about being behind or in front at he flop, maybe just get the book eh? i'm off to chapters.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

you lose money when your opponent wouldnt play his hand differently if he could see your cards.

I haven't read it, but, I would assume that the other way is true also? You would win money if you could see your opponents card and wouldn't play any differently. Or is there more to it than that. what about being behind or in front at he flop, maybe just get the book eh? i'm off to chapters.

From The Theory of Poker, the fundamental theorem of poker is:
"Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose."

Originally Posted by andy-akb

From The Theory of Poker, the fundamental theorem of poker is:
"Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose."

Ah, well this makes sense yes, but this doesn't warrant that you are disproportionally afraid of low-odds occurrences.

If you have AA and the flop is J72.. does this mean you'll stop betting because your opp might have a set? If you standard bet 2/3 pot here, would you do the same if you saw that his hand was 77?

I think that is the point. If his hand is 77 you fold. If it's not you bet. And if you do the opposite of what you would do,if you seen the hand, you lose. It's about what you do differently than what's right.

Originally Posted by jackvance

Ah, well this makes sense yes, but this doesn't warrant that you are disproportionally afraid of low-odds occurrences.

And again I know what you are saying, yes there is a low chance of a flush draw. My main point is that there is also a low chance that slow playing will increase the chance you have of stacking your opponent. If they are getting it in on the turn, they are most likely getting it in on the flop. Yes, the ace may be a scare card to them, but they didnt think much of the aggression on a turn 8d. Yes, some players need to sense weakness before they bet, but your hand isnt that strong to begin with, there is no reason not to raise this incredibly weak bet, or bet it if you are checked to.

Originally Posted by jackvance

If you have AA and the flop is J72.. does this mean you'll stop betting because your opp might have a set? If you standard bet 2/3 pot here, would you do the same if you saw that his hand was 77?

You dont "stop betting" and I never advocated to stop betting in this hand because I was worried about a flush. I said to bet your hand for value and to protect against a draw. If you knew your opponent had a flush draw, then it would be a mistake to check. Can we agree on that?

Your example is a very different situation altogether. If we have a specific read that our opponent is on a PP preflop [based on more than the general assumptions used in this thread, maybe a limp/call from EP from a player who only limps in EP with PPs] and then face aggression when using our standard play on the flop, it would be correct to fold against somebody who doesnt typically show this aggression. If you knew he had a set, it would be incorrect to bet at all, but you dont know if he has a set without betting, so most would agree that it is not a mistake to bet here.

In this thread there is a flush draw on the board [we dont have to do any guessing about what draws are possible] and you have TPTK, this isnt the spot to slowplay because of any of the hands he could have, which include a flush draw [albeit somehwat unlikely]. A raise here should be standard both for value and for protection. I still dont see how a slowplay would be more profitable in this situation as opposed to a "standard" play.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

Yes, the ace may be a scare card to them, but they didnt think much of the aggression on a turn.

That's the whole point of the slowplay here. Not to give them an improvement-card, but to let them think we don't have the ace, so that they will become aggressive on later streets because they feel, as you checked the flop, that you don't have the ace.

Yes, some players need to sense weakness before they bet, but your hand isnt that strong to begin with,

You are the 92% favorite. If that isn't strong, then what is?

Originally Posted by jackvance

That's the whole point of the slowplay here. Not to give them an improvement-card, but to let them think we don't have the ace, so that they will become aggressive on later streets because they feel, as you checked the flop, that you don't have the ace.

Yes, some players need to sense weakness before they bet, but your hand isnt that strong to begin with,

You are the 92% favorite. If that isn't strong, then what is?

A 92% favorite? On the turn knowing his exact two cards yes. On the river without knowing his cards, no. You have TPTK you do not want to slowplay this. You slowplay when your hand is strong enough that even if your opponents hand improves [which you would want it to], you still beat them and are able to get them to commit more than they would otherwise. This hand is clearly not against a thinking player as the turn paired the board and the hero suddenly makes a PSB but the villain pushes. I have no reason to believe that villain wouldnt have gone all in on this flop, and you ahvent shown any reason that they wouldnt have. Showing weakness is good to get a villain to bet at you on the next street, but not with a hand like TPTK on a board with a flush draw.

I'm really curious to know how people would read the opening min-bet. I never min-bet preflop, but my general read on a min-bet preflop is that it says "I have a kinda good hand". So, I would be afraid of suited connecters, or Axs. Seeing him turn over QQ was a surprise.

About slowplaying the flop, I don't like it. If you'll slowplay TPTK, then when WOULDN'T you slowplay??? If I were playing against you, I'd take note of that, and then go after you when you do bet/raise, cause I'd know you didn't have anything. Seeing you bet means that you DON'T have a hand, and that read is confirmed in the second hand that you posted. Check/call when you've got it, raise when you don't. You're pretty lucky that you caught on both the turn and river.

One more thing about the play on the flop:
At that point, the size of the pot in 21x the big blind. If I'm Hero, I'd bet, and if villain folds, I'd happily take down the pot there. I feel 21 BB is a good pot size for a hand like TPTK. Opinions on that?

Originally Posted by Awaji E

I'm really curious to know how people would read the opening min-bet. I never min-bet preflop, but my general read on a min-bet preflop is that it says "I have a kinda good hand". So, I would be afraid of suited connecters, or Axs. Seeing him turn over QQ was a surprise.

I think, at this level at least, I read min-raises (it's pf, so a raise) as "I don't understand standard raises". It could hide anything from AA to any two sooted.

Originally Posted by Awaji E

About slowplaying the flop, I don't like it. If you'll slowplay TPTK, then when WOULDN'T you slowplay??? If I were playing against you, I'd take note of that, and then go after you when you do bet/raise, cause I'd know you didn't have anything. Seeing you bet means that you DON'T have a hand, and that read is confirmed in the second hand that you posted. Check/call when you've got it, raise when you don't.

Man, that's a really dangerous way to play. I mean taking a "read" off just two hands is risky enough in itself. I mean, take what you can get, but to believe you've figured me out after two hands?
The reason that it's particularly short-sighted however, is that you ought to be aware who I did it against. If I did it against someone else, out of position then that may be better evidence.

I mean really. "Seeing you bet means that you DON'T have a hand".
If my opponents really believed that then I'd be making 100bb/100.

And again, you've got to move beyond "slowplay TPTK" and "don't slowplay TPTK".
In this instance I was 91% to win after the flop.

91%

If you asked me what I thought my opponent was holding I would have given, in order of likelihood:

QQ, JJ, KK, AK, AA, TT, 99

But I'd have bet good money on the top three (pf re-re-raise from a passive player good evidence imho)

91% against these, if it's something like KQ, QJ odds are even more like 98% (but doubt these would have got a pf re-re-raise). I'd be stupid NOT to slowplay this.

Of course this is based on reads, which could be wrong. But they weren't.
Had I blown my entire stack on this, well it would be a lesson in how I shouldn't trust my reads.

Originally Posted by Awaji E

You're pretty lucky that you caught on both the turn and river.

Yes. Although I only needed one of them. Or any king really. That's what AKo is my number one money earner (net) and in top 6 for profit per hand.
It was a risky hand here because I had no idea what they had. I would never have put them on Q6s.

Sorry, I totally overstated my point, which was just that you slowplayed when you had a hand, and raised when you didn't. Not good if you don't have a reason, but it seems like you did here, so ok.

Your read was good, but with a min-raise preflop and a min-bet post-flop, I'd have a much harder time putting him on a hand. How likely would think Axs would have been? That would have been my read.

[quote="jackvance"]

Originally Posted by Anosmic

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Not steaming.

Hm, what is there to say here? He tilted and stuck to his bottom pair.. ehm.. I mean, it's super obvious from your play you missed the flop and hit on the turn.. weak half-hearted c-bet, and then an ace shows up and suddenly you gain the confidence to almost bet the pot?

[quote="jackvance"]

Originally Posted by Anosmic

...

It's only "super obvious" because you know what my hole cards are.

Heh, you may think that but I've seen this betting pattern so often that I know what it means. If you didn't hit on the turn, you have either continued with a weaker bluff, or checked, am I right? It's not too uncommon in my games that I know what my opponents have because these betting patterns tip me off

...

...

OMG Jack you annoy the hell out of me. Do you know how much you're abusing the idea "knowing" what your opponent has? You're looking at this guys cards face up and maybe he played it like you would expect someone to. But there are a lot more levels of thinking in poker than you seem to think. You're not the only person who can figure things out. Even shitty poker players know that they don't want to be figured out so they'll do wierd shit all the time.
If you're gonna put so much trust in your ability to "know" what's going on you're gonna get owned. You need to start thing about probable ranges of cards, and you need to start having thought patterns like "Well with that play [bet/check whatever] I believe that X% of the time he has what he's represnting and y% of the time he's mixing things up/setting up a table image/trying to get paid off by overrepresenting a hand and trying to induce you to "call his bluff".
For the most part poker is not about KNOWING, And things being obvious. It's about things being probable. Unless of course the cards are face up.
To say that you know how 10NL and 20NL players play is to say that you're a narrow-minded poker player with a lot of downswings coming his way and an inability to move up to a level where most of the players are thinking in unique ways.

Originally Posted by ekillian

OMG Jack you annoy the hell out of me.

Not intentional I promise.

To say that you know how 10NL and 20NL players play is to say that you're a narrow-minded poker player with a lot of downswings coming his way and an inability to move up to a level where most of the players are thinking in unique ways.

"Knowing what you have" ofcourse refers to "knowing how you value your hand". There are plenty of players at 10NL and 20NL who always value-bet on how they value their hand. It's not always accurate, but enough so for it to be profitable to take into consideration. These patterns are recurring.. and 6max is very read-dependant so I've developped a sensitivity to them.

I'm ofcourse often wrong too. Some players indeed play very random. That's annoying, but not a real problem. If I get my suspicions confirmed however, that makes playing against this player from then on very straight-forward. Occasionally he might trick me, ok, but a general "read" on his hand strength is very helpful.

I thought I'd mention this here, since I myself at one point didn't realize how much my betting patterns were tipping other people off until someone pointed it out to me (friendly guy in chat).

And yes, I do plead guilty to what someone else called "beginner's confidence". In other words, a certain high when you make a new realization or notice how a certain aspect of your game is becoming more solid.

To the more veteran people around, these things are trivial. "Why is he so happy about something so obvious," you might think. But each step you take is important. And yeah, it's the beginner's forum here where I post these things.

ya know what I do like Jack? What I said made you explain what you meant better and made it come off more reasonably and understandable. But you can avoid my lashing out if you just make sure you say what you mean exactly.

Just bewars of the "obvious". A good player knows what his actions could indicate to another player. To send different players THE SAME messages, different plays are often required. You base this on their table image and what they've seen you do among other thing. I might play 75% of the time in an obvious manner but I know that I'm doing it. In my mind "obvious" (to me) moves are +EV moves, so I'll continually make plus EV moves which might make me predictable. However I'm not nearly as predictable as people think. I play normally enough to get myself stereotyped, but this stereotype is usually going to be inaccurate because I do have tricks (and aces) up my sleeve and most of the time people never know when I've pulled a trick on them so my image doesn't change.
Ya see what I'm saying? Honestly I'm not a great cash game player. I'm profitable for sure, but I'm not a guy who establishes great reads and feasts on people. But I do things like identifying those people and taking advantage of their, normally profitable style by playing ways I wouldn't against other people.
All that to say is a good player is constantly adapting and I'm not one to assume everyone is a fish. Maybe to a fault. But you really need to open your mind to the thought that people could and often are adapting to play YOU specifically.
If the way you read 10NL and 20NL players in general is working for you then stick with it. I'm jealous of your confidence in reads to tell you the truth, however that doesn't mean I think the confidence is deserved. It very well could be! But I KNOW you go overboard with statements concerning the obviousness of hands and I'd bet that when you're playing you're not so narrow-minded as you came off in this post (harsh term but it's the truth in a sense) so when you look at these HHs just REMEMBER much more is going on and has been going on then just these numbers and letters in this HH lead you to believe. There is so much information missing in an HH ESPECIALLY in a cash game so just keep the intangibles in mind. And keep being enthusiastic. Just weigh your words carefully and know that all across the poker world there are profitable low stakes guys like you who you need to identify, even if not specifically identify, just so you remember that other people (who knows who) very well could be thinking on the same level as you or on some abstract level. Hell I have a hand about someone thing on an "abstract" (stupid) level which would really illustrate how abnormal (and wrong in most circumstances) thinking can cost a profitable player a pot.

Originally Posted by ekillian

But you can avoid my lashing out if you just make sure you say what you mean exactly.

I fear I lack the selfcontrol to do that

But I KNOW you go overboard with statements concerning the obviousness of hands and I'd bet that when you're playing you're not so narrow-minded as you came off in this post

Usually not no; But ofcourse it happens.. typically doesn't last too long though. Direct feedback is a good teacher.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

A 92% favorite? On the turn knowing his exact two cards yes. On the river without knowing his cards, no. You have TPTK you do not want to slowplay this.

From the preflop action, he either has you dominated with AA (really unlikely), tied with AK, or most likely, you have him totally dominated with him holding AQ/KK/QQ/JJ etc. There is no point in generalizing this into "you have TPTK". It totally depends on hand ranges and the options the board gives.

It would have been completely different if the board had been, say, AJT. Here you also have "TPTK" but here it's rather hazy what to put your opp on.. AJ/JJ would have you beat, other likely hands have a gutshot, etc. That would be bad to slowplay.

Another example with the exact same flop as in this hand, but with opp simply calling, I'd be a lot more sceptical to slowplay that. The range he is on then is a lot broader, so then I'll value-bet.

You slowplay when your hand is strong enough that even if your opponents hand improves [which you would want it to], you still beat them and are able to get them to commit more than they would otherwise.

You keep repeating this one reason to slowplay, but really, that was NOT the reason advocated to slowplay here. What you say is indeed a great reason to slowplay if you flop the nuts, but there are other reasons to slowplay aswell you know. Like here, fake not having the ace for one street, give a little chance of possible improvement to your opponent (like 5% he'll go over you: another Q and an unlikely flush) and take this risk hoping you can cash more on the next street(s) where you wouldn't have otherwise.

I have no reason to believe that villain wouldnt have gone all in on this flop, and you ahvent shown any reason that they wouldnt have.

How *could* I show this? I can't go back and replay the hand and see what he would have done. I could actually say the same to you.. why would villain have gone all-in on the flop? You haven't shown this. Without the slowplay he might have folded or only given a portion of his stack.