An inspired question....

Early/middle of a tourney (blinds are relatively sane.) An aggressive player from the CO/Button raises. You're in the BB with AQo and flat call. Flop is Axx. What's your line and why? What circumstances might effect which line you take?

A) Bet and re-raise the shit out of the flop.
B) Check/Raise the flop
C) Check/Call the flop, then Check/Raise the turn

If there is a straight or flush possibility with "x,x" I bet and reraise on the flop to take it down.

If you are familiar with the player and know he is super aggressive, I like option 3, re-raise the turn. Maybe he'll get just enough rope to hang himself. I think you have him outkicked even if he has an A. The only danger in this is that once in a while he'll show you a set or he'll pair up his lower kicker on the turn or river.

I think the safest of all is to bet it right out on the flop. Hopefully, he will give you credit for the ace and you take it down right there. If he tries a re-steal you can reraise. If he goes all in over the top of me I think I fold. However, this is also probably the least profitable approach.

I'd normally bet the flop, but against an aggressive player who's likely to bet that ace whether he has it or not I'd check.

Whether I'd check/call or check/raise would depend on the board and his bet size.

If there's a draw on board that he might put me on, I might just call and check the turn (expecting him to bet again). If he minimum bets, I have to raise though to protect my hand. If he bets huge, it's not that believeable that I'm on a draw if I call so I'd check/raise and maybe even push all-in.

If the board has no draws, it's a check/raise...A call is going to be interpreted as a trap, so I may as well raise and hope he thinks I'm going for the re-steal and that he gives me further action.

I'm playing this hand like I'm relatively sure that only a set will beat me....AK is a possibility for him, but he raised from late position so he could have anything. It's unlikely any amount of heat will make me fold, unless he doesn't normally bluff and he pushes all-in for a huge amount relative to the pot.

I'd choose A

i'll take option A - if he's aggessive his raise could have been from A8 to KJ to anything in between - maybe even a smaller pocket pair.

but i still bet the flop hard - if he ends up on any kind of draw, i want to make him pay to keep drawing - no free card.

I'm chosing option A with an asterick. I will definatly raise post flop, but I want to study what else is on the board.

I could be talked into laying my hand down, depending on if someone re-raised, what else is on the board, and what type of player(s) I'm up against.

Given all that information, I will re-raise, call or fold. But I will always start out raising.

If it is only down to the aggressive player and me, I will re-raise the crap out of it. I might be tempted to raise the minimum or 2X the minimum to coax him into a re-raise.

D) Show weakness. (Claim middle pair?)

Throw out a small bet and let him hang himself straight away from the flop. If he flat calls (why would he?), then make him fold on the turn. Basically give him a reason to rereaise you on the flop.

This answer may sound a little p*ssy but being that it is early in the tournament I would play this hand very cautiously. I wouldn't want to get married to any pot unlees I clearly had the best of it.

Top pair with a good kicker isn't really "clearly having the best of it" to me.

You know he's an aggressive player so you have to think that he might be raising with something mediocre. That thinking would make me want to play the hand aggressively. However you still have to believe that he could have anything! He may be holding a small pocket pair and one of those "x"s just gave him trips. Or maybe he's holding Ax and he's got two pair.

Being the aggressive player he is, chances are he is going to call or reraise any bet you make so it's going to be up to you to decide how crazy you want to get with this hand.

I would probably bet the pot to see where I stood. If he calls or reraises then its up to me to decide if I want to risk a big part of my stack early in a tourney.

When I lose hands like this I always kick myself for going too big too early. Its too tough to recover.

When I lay them down, even if I had the best hand I can always make it up later.

It depends a little on how I think he sees me and how far to the aggressive end of the spectrum I see him, but I think I would most often check raise the flop in a NL tourney. I would want to get my chips in the middle if I thought him capable of playing Ax and calling an all-in.

In limit, I would bet the flop, and consider check-raising the turn if he flat called the flop.

In both cases I would be kicking myself for flat calling preflop.

I'll post some more thoughts later, but here are a few keys for me...

o With 1 Ace in hand and another on the board, even considering his play list, more often than not he doesn't have one of the 2 remaining Aces.

o Given that Ace - anything is a routine steal hand, he's almost always going to represent an Ace on the flop.

o I said aggressive. Not manical and/or calling station.

{This post has been removed}

it was a good play but you have to pick your spots, i play very conservativly but i pick my oppourtunites, to make moves, there is no wrong way to play, every one has a style that works for them, mine works for me yours works for you we are both profitable. so i dont think thats the only way as you have said it, its one way and if it works for you great, but its definatly not the only way

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

I am willing to lose everytime I sit down in a tourney in order to win. Half assing it and playing 'conservatively' will not win you tourneys in my opinion. I will probably get ripped for this but thats the way I play and I am starting to become much more successful than I ever have before.

I'll be the first one to rip on Rippy.

I first want to say that I am a big advocate of how Rippy plays. He does very well and if you want to argue with his style, you can. But no one can argue with his track record.

But I'm going to argue with his style.

I feel it is crutial to be conservative in the beginning stages of the tournament. Sklansky said that 1 chip that you lose has more value than 1 chip that you win. When you are playing against 8-9 other people and you have just started playing, you don't know what other people's style is. You can pull off a lot more successful bluffs once you have the chip lead. But if you gamble to get that chip lead, you can and will gamble to lose it just as easily.

Once the game slims down, and you can see how others play, then you can open up and give them some competition. Once you have established you game, you can even bluff from the short-stacked position.

The way Rippy plays works perfectly for Rippy. Because he is very good at determining position, chip count, exploiting bluffing opportunities, and has a great head for the game. Rippy didn't start playing this way, or more accurately, didn't successfully start playing this way. If someone reads this to get better at poker, I want to suggest staying away from this highly aggressive way until you understand your game.

I would definately pick A).

-because im going to be the aggressor,

But if he (and ONLY if he) came back within 1-2 seconds all in, I know hes got something, (could be pockets that made a set on the flop).

or he could have 2 pair A x suited.

I've found from my experience that it is almost impossible to put a guy on a set after the flop, I would feel comfortable as long as he didn't push his whole stack in (early in tourney, he/she is going to be thinking about survival unless they flop the nuts)...

It's one of those judgements you have to make at the table based on the feel of the game.
IMO

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Aceofone

I would definately pick A).

-because im going to be the aggressor

Interesting. If you're 90% certain your opponent is going to bet a particular board reguardless of what's in his hole, are you better off betting into him or letting him put more chips in the pot first?

There is a high value being the aggressor, but at what point does it become more about getting more chips into the pot when you have a likely best hand?

I don't get why everyone is leading out and betting. This guy is an aggressive player, as Fnord said, and you're in the BB, after just calling the raise preflop, so your strength is very concealed.

Since this guy is an aggressive player, you know he's going to bet if you check to him, no matter what he has. I'm not saying he's a maniac that'll always bet, but here he has no reason to assume that its best for him to do otherwise, even if he's on a draw.

His preflop raise allows him to represent the ace here, even if he has KQ or JJ or whatever. With a draw, he'd look to take it down on a semi-bluff, and if not hopefully make his hand on the turn. He has no reason to think you'll reraise. And even if the prefop raise was a complete steal, he still has a chance to take the pot down here.

So anyways, if there's a draw out there, I'm check raising. If there's not a draw, I may consider check / calling, then check raising on the turn. But if he is on a draw by the turn, he may consider just checking here, if he feels like you're trapping him.

But anyway, at the flop I see no reason for him to believe you have a strong hand. Check to him, he will bet, and then decide where to go from there.

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

it DOES mean that if I find myself deep in a pot and the river card shows me a scary board...I'll go all in and put my opponent to the decision of whether or not he wants to risk all HIS chips....I did it early in the last tourney I played in going all in on a stone cold bluff and forced my opponent to fold and ended up getting second place (18 players)

Haha, this kind of sounds like how you went out of the FTRIII tourney though too. But I think the key difference there was, as you said, stack size. If you had been the one to take out Fnord so soon before that, and you were able to put Maxx in on the river, he may have folded his pocket Ks with an ace on the board and a flush possiblility that hit on the river. But as the big stack, he was able to gamble that you were bluffing and call, only risking a total of about half of his chips (which would only take him down to an average stack if he lost) in that hand, instead of the entire tourney.

Edit: Fnord, you're stealing my thunder, man. Don't post my thoughts while I'm typing them up.

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

Look guys...

The only way that you can make it deep into any size tournament is by taking a chance early and hanging your balls out there. If you lose, move on to the next one...but if you win or double up early then you have gained the most important thing in tournament play...LEVERAGE

I totally disagree with playing 'tight' early just because its early. I'm willing to get knocked out early in order to possibly double up and go on to win with more than twice the chips I started with.

Well Ripp seeing how you're ripping on me.......

I think online players are a little bit spoiled. Your line, "If you lose, move on to the next one..." is what I'm stuck on. What if the next tourney isn't just a click away? What if the next tourney is a week or month away? What if you've waited all week to play in this one tourney and you lose that questionable hand? Do you really want to sit and watch everyone else have fun while you deal cards and become the beer beatch?

Not trying to be a d!ck but I play alot of live games. Online poker is a luxury for me. I don't have access to a computer all the time. The other problem is that I'm stuck playing Canadian $$$ against US $$$. So when you put $50 down on your account at PartyPoker it costs me $65-$75. Not really the best situation.

Anyways if you're speaking profit/hour then your strategy is probably correct. However I have a hard time with the whole just move on to the next tourney concept. When I sit down to play a tourney, I'm playing to win the thing. Not just for the $$$ but for the pride of it. I don't believe the only way to get deep into a tourney is to hang your balls on the line early. With that style your going to make it deep or go out real early.

I prefer to pick my spots when they come. Your games are different than mine and I'm sure you're doing well. That's great.

Peace.

I chose B. Only to see what they do with my raise. I might act a little differently depending on what XX were. Like if it were A/7/2 and Rippy was in the game I'd fold immediately and withdraw from the tourney.

{This post has been removed}

No worries Ripp!

I wasn't really offended anyway. Sorry if that post came off sounding too harsh. I have seen that comment about profit/hour and "don't worry about losing the hand just move on to another tourney" on a few other posts. I can understand it but I just can't agree with it because the majority of games I play are live. It sucks big time going out early on a hand like Fnord has given for an example. Then my night's over. "See you in a week." Tough to take. I like playing too much.

I do agree that you have to look at the big picture with this game. There's just too many up's and down's on the short term to determine if what you are doing is correct.

I've been keeping track of my record at my home games and out of the last 30 games I've been in the money (top 3) 17 times. I'm happy with that but in those 30 games I've only won 3 times .

Its seems my overly cautious approach usually gets me in the money but winning the tourney on a regular basis isn't happening yet.

I have been paying attention to many of your posts Ripp. I've been trying to incorporate more of your style into my play too. What I've been trying to do is play quite tight early on and then when its down to 5 people I switch gears and start playing a little more aggressively. I haven't been able to win recently but hopefully soon.

Anyways no hard feelings here. Keep those posts coming! They're great for guys like me just learning.

i play very timidly, but i feel i play my best as a short stack and shorthanded, i know thats probly not how it should be but thats my game at this point, i play the 22$ 10 player sng's, and quite often it will be down to 4 or 5 players and i will have just let myself get blinded down win the odd pot and be around 800 chips or so and everyone else is at 1500 - 2500, and i pick my spots and a good percentage of the time i make the money, and alot of those times i take first, thanks to all the heads up play and tips i have gotten lately

so i agree ripp yours is one style that works, but to say its the only way is wrong, there are many ways. maybe its just the way you phrased it, i dont know,

Wow, I'm the exact opposite of that. I definitely play best as the big stack (although I like short handed play as well, so maybe not the exact opposite). Once I became the big stack in the FTR after party game with about half of the people gone, I wouldn't have been happy with anything but a win.

I expect to win when I'm in that type of situation, but its not always easy for me to get there.

Then again, Maxx ... you didn't do bad in FTR III as the big stack for practically the entire thing, due to ill timed all in bluffs by Fnord and Ripp (with a great call against Ripp).

{This post has been removed}

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

The only way that you can make it deep into any size tournament is by taking a chance early and hanging your balls out there. If you lose, move on to the next one...but if you win or double up early then you have gained the most important thing in tournament play...LEVERAGE

i guess this would be where you said its the only way! and i disagree with you on this point, hey everyone has there own style and opinion on what style works best but you must be able to respect all styles.

{This post has been removed}

i have mad eit deep in to a multi as have many others, and we dont all hang our balls out there, hope for the best and move on to the next one, when we go bust like you.

you dont think i play timidly? if i think i have the best of it i am aggresive, i do bluff but i dont bluff very often or make a rereraise with nothing, i would rather take a small loss then risk a large loss for a small gain, thatss just me, and my style of play, i do feel i am a timid player, but i do switch it up and switch gears as to keep people guessing.

yeah and i shit my pants when you moved all in, but it wasnt the ace i was sweating, it was more the flush that completed on the river, luckily it wasnt the suit you were looking for. but you would have still had 1200 chips left if you just checked/folded there, or even better fold to my reraise on preflop, i am a tight player you had to know i had 9 8 beat, you may catch alot of pokerstar tight as fuck, no one ever bluffs on here he must have me players, but I am ftr born and raised i know your game. cant wait till ftr 4 ! i know i'm going out first i just dont want it to be to rippys 7 4 offsuit or that'll make me look like a fool heheheh

Originally Posted by michael1123

Then again, Maxx ... you didn't do bad in FTR III as the big stack for practically the entire thing, due to ill timed all in bluffs by Fnord and Ripp (with a great call against Ripp).

yeah but michael if you check it once we got own to 4 or 5 people i was the short stack again., i cant keep a chip lead for the life of me

ohh and the hand with me and chanman was heads up, i had KQ suited, he raised me , i reraised him a large amount, he called, i figured he had some thing like J 10, Q 9 something like that, flop was 4 5 6, i beleive he made a small raise and i reraised in for rest of my chips, i figured i had best of him and if not he would fold to putting me on an overpair, he made the call with Q 4 and turn and river was no help, which i never put him on, with the call of my large reraise, it was a great callwith reraiseing preflop nad him only having bottom pair, i'm not sure if i coulda made the same call, but I guess it was poetic justice him taking me out with a rag, to my timid ass play

{This post has been removed}

hey man he made great a call, that i couldnt have made, you keep saying i am balsy and not timid, well he showed ballsyness if anyone,

hey man he made great a call, that i couldnt have made, you keep saying i am balsy and not timid, well he showed ballsyness if anyone,

With that accidental double post, Maxx now has 7 of the last 8 posts in this thread. Look at all those dogs lined up!

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by Aceofone

I would definately pick A).

-because im going to be the aggressor

Interesting. If you're 90% certain your opponent is going to bet a particular board reguardless of what's in his hole, are you better off betting into him or letting him put more chips in the pot first?

There is a high value being the aggressor, but at what point does it become more about getting more chips into the pot when you have a likely best hand?

If you are that certain that your opponent is going to bet i believe the right play is to lead into him. Even if you are 50% certain you should still lead into him. Most of the time he will reraise a ton trying to push you out. so if you flop something solid just lead right into him and alot of the time he will just go all in and pay you off. Even if you lead out and he folds you still have won a pot and helped your table image. If you check you are opening the door for a whole potential of bad situations. you are giving him the option of a free card that may hurt you. Or he may jsut bet out, then once you reraise he might throw it away. Your initial bet looks alot weeker then a reraise of his and is therefore a better way to get him to push it all in the middle. Doyle Brunson talks about this in super system and says he always leads into the raiser with a great hand because he wants to win that all in pot instead of a small bet.

my dog is too cute so i just wanted to show him off, here he is again for your viewing pleasure.

Post deleted.

Originally Posted by Grand_MasterB

If you are that certain that your opponent is going to bet i believe the right play is to lead into him. Even if you are 50% certain you should still lead into him. Most of the time he will reraise a ton trying to push you out. so if you flop something solid just lead right into him and alot of the time he will just go all in and pay you off.

I disagree with that. I think in this situation he'll almost surely bet if you check, I don't think he'll almost surely raise if you bet. Particularly if he's on a flush draw, where he'll almost definitely just call. The check raise in my mind has the best possibility of making the pot larger (no matter what he has), while unless the guy is a maniac, I don't think he'll be raising you all in unless he has you beat (or at least a very close hand, like AJ, if he's very aggressive). Maybe a raise, but its not like non-maniacs always raise all in just because they preflop raised and someone lead into them.

Originally Posted by Grand_MasterB

Even if you lead out and he folds you still have won a pot and helped your table image.

But again, if you check raise, you win a bigger pot if he immediately folds, and probably improve your table image more than you would've by just leading.

Originally Posted by Grand_MasterB

If you check you are opening the door for a whole potential of bad situations. you are giving him the option of a free card that may hurt you.

It seems the opposite way for me. As I and Fnord said, I don't see any way this guy is not betting when you check to him, no matter what he has (even a hand that he'd fold to if you lead out, or a hand that he'd just call on a draw).

Also, are you talking about leading out with a small bet or a big bet? The small bet is risky because it gives a flush draw a cheap card, and I doubt he'd risk raising big on a draw after you lead into him. A big bet scares out the hands that would've bluffed on the flop, and does not invite a big reraise unless he has the goods.

Originally Posted by Grand_MasterB

Or he may jsut bet out, then once you reraise he might throw it away. Your initial bet looks alot weeker then a reraise of his and is therefore a better way to get him to push it all in the middle. Doyle Brunson talks about this in super system and says he always leads into the raiser with a great hand because he wants to win that all in pot instead of a small bet.

AQ in this situation is a good hand, but its not the type of "great" hand that Doyle was probably refering to. Its not a set, a boat, a nut flush or straight, or even two pair. Its just top pair, second best kicker.

Not that I'm saying I wouldn't call an all in, but it would depend on a lot of factors. Anyway, I think that you'll definitely increase the pot size if you check (maybe even get an all in bluff immediately), but the lead into makes a situation where he'll almost positively bet into a situation where he's not near as likely to raise, in my opinion.

micheal

I totally agree with you. We all know A-Q isnt a great hand, more of a trouble hand in a lot of situations. I was merely responding to Fnord when he asked the general question "Interesting. If you're 90% certain your opponent is going to bet a particular board reguardless of what's in his hole, are you better off betting into him or letting him put more chips in the pot first?" I didnt think he was talking about this hand but just any particular hand. More of just discussing strategy in general, and thats what i was reffering to myself. When i say great hand i mean a flopped set, maybe a Big Slick that hits nicely, things of that nature. With this A-Q example i agree with you. Hope this clears things up!

In my experience, a min bet is the easiest way to get an aggressive player to put more money in the pot in NL. It looks like a post oak bluff.

This has certainly been true for me at the $20 SnG and $25 NL ring level of play. Strangely enough, it seems that most players would put you on a better hand if you checked than if you bet the minimum.

If you're worried about giving a flush draw a cheap card by min betting, then you should also be worried about giving a flush draw an even cheaper card by checking.

I should add that I think this works for me because I am somewhat aggressive, and will bet at the flop a fair percentage of the time, even if I miss.

I agree about underbetting to entice a big raise if you have a monster and they have something like top pair and put you on a draw. But underbetting doesn't usually entice a flush draw to raise big. Especially because if they have the nut flush draw, and your underbet makes them put you on a flush draw, they're hoping you both hit it.

I doubt anyone is still reading this, but here's my $0.02 (probably worth even less than that)

While I don't really disagree with much of what was posted - lots of good ideas for me to take into consideration - I do disagree with Rippy's assertion that the only way to make it late into a tournament is to double up early and then leverage the table to get higher. Skilled opponents, if they double up early, will probably leverage to the last and efficiently at that. In many games I've seen though, the big stacks *don't* use leverage when they're on the bubble. Especially when there are two or three big stacks (at a single table SnG, for instance) with 5 people left and everyone else just above the starting chip size.

Because of that other big stack, i think they were afraid of using the leverage lest it backfire and *they* become a shortstack having leverage used against them to force them out of the bubble.

I've blind-stolen quite effectively from the large stacks in this manner *as a small stack* until, well, i'm threatening their chip lead. Granted, these people aren't very good (tournament) players, most likely, and so the result is a bit skewed.

I have a relatively short bankroll, so I'm not one to put up money for a tournament and blow it hoping to double up early. I want to get ITM and build my bankroll steadily, not win 1/4 Big.

..I'm getting off topic here.

So, in that example, having the A on the bigblind. I'd check raise. It's too early to check/call (though that can make people extremely nervous if you can command respect at the table). If I know enough about the person, i.e. he'll always represent the Ace, then I'd Check/Raise. If he re-raises, probably push all-in, force him to make the decision. If I don't know much about him, probably just lay it down, let him have the blinds and the small raise. No risk blowing it all; wait for more info on him, then use it against him.

{This post has been removed}

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

I don't recall ever saying that 'doubling up early' was the ONLY way to make it deep in a tournament. But I do recall emphasizing the importance of leverage early on.

Wow, Rippy is misquoted more than Nostradamus.

I agree with Ripptyde on everything except when he said he likes to strangle baby trout.

{This post has been removed}

Ripp is one of the best MTT players on FTR (if not the best!) hes proved time and time again with his results he is a successful player.

I'm a semi successful SnG player, but MTTs kick my ass, Ripper has proved time and time again that he has what it takes to hit the final table. I like to poke fun just like everyone else when he posts the hands going all in with 74os...

but how often do you see a "Rock" winning the WPT or WSOP? Never its the gamblers, Ripp is an MTT / SnG player and to be successful you have to play your players more than your cards, he succeeds over and over.

If it was luck it would have run out ages ago...

Ripp for pres! *cough* i mean Ripp for vice pres, vote for Toasty

Originally Posted by Daniel Negreanu

Hand 1: Literally the first hand dealt, fellow PSO member Daniel Rentzner raised from middle position to 200. Jim McManus called from the small blind and I threw in another chip with 10-7 offsuit (which happens to be my favorite hand

** The raise was so small, and such a small percentage of my chips that I was willing to take the 5 to 1 odds I was being layed on the call.

The flop came Q-7-7 with two hearts. Jim checked, I checked, and Daniel bet 300. Jim folded, and I raised it 600 more to 900.

**At this point I put Daniel on a Q, or possibly AA, KK or even a flush draw which I felt was less likely.

The turn brought an offsuit 5, and I bet 1500, Daniel quickly called.

**Now I'm thinking "I've got him". He called quickly, which led me to believe he wasn't going to fold to a river bet.

The river brought a harmless 4, so I bet 5000, which Daniel called.

**Obviously I thought I had the best hand, and wanted to get maximum value. Initially I considered betting 6000, but thought 5000 would make it more likely that I'd be called. In hindsight, I think I could have sold the hand for 6000, or even 8000.

Great start. Dealt my faovrite hand, won 10,000, let's rock and roll. Hand #2: