Printable View
I was playing in a tourament with only six players at the table and it was not the final table. Blinds were $200 / $100. I get pocket tens in mid position. There is no one in ahead of me and I raise 3 X bb hoping to take the post down. I get one caller who has position on me. The flop comes with a jack and two rags. What do I do now?
You tell us the reads you had on the player that smoothcalled you. Also how much he had in his stack, and how much you had in yours is pretty relevant.
In a vaccuum, without any other information, I would say that a standard continuation bet is your best option here.
But More information will help us help you.
I agree. 1/2 pot here is good for information, but I'm not putting much more in. I usually play TT like any other mid-pair, looking for the set.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
Well now you having me thinking like I haven't considered before, stack size. I can't answer what his stack size was. Now I have learned about a leak I have, not considering stack size. Mine was about average. So should I be more concerned about a large stack size or a small one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
It's not qualitative, it's quantitative.Quote:
Originally Posted by jolub
Go by smallest stack, aka effective stack.
He has 500, you have 1000. Effective stack 500, you auto push turn.
He has 50,000, you have 25,000. Effective stack 25,000. Too start your pre-flop raise was too small, but I would either cbet 600 or c/c flop.
This is bigger than "a leak". Consider buying a book.
Betting/raising for information is RARELY ever good, especially on the flop. Get rid of that in your game for now. Also, playing TT like a set is only good in certain situations (as in their range is beating ours and we have high implied odds).Quote:
Originally Posted by kb coolman
As for OP, I think others have mentioned good stuff for you to think about.
Please stop betting for information.
One thing that Swiggidy was going after here is the comparison of stacksize to the blinds.
Lets say you have 100 chips in front of you. and the blinds are 1/2. You have 50 big bets in front of you. In a typical tournament mode, you're safe for a very long time, and you should be in "hunker down and wait for good hands mode, don't stack off unless you're darn positive you have the best of it."
But lets say that you have 100 chips and the blinds are 10/20. Now you only have 5 big bets, and what's worse, is the blinds will eat you alive in 3 rounds around the table. At this point, you're trying to get your money in as good as possible, and if you're under the gun, you're putting your money in with any two cards. If you're on the button you're hoping for something that even looks kinda good, like QJo or 67s or even any Ace.
So stacks matter, and the effect of the blinds against your stack matters too.
Just so we're clear here, I didn't say we should bet for information. I just said make a bet because I think since we were the PF aggressor we can take it down with a standard continuation bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by kmind
Sounds like I have a hole in my game here. Why would I not bet for information? A check here shows a ton of weakness, IMO, whereas the info (read: c-bet), represents the overs or that I a least caught a piece with the J. Is he playing broadways that don't connect with the flop? If I check he represents strength, I'm out. Not betting here doesn't seem right. The info I'm looking for is 'Does this guy have something he's willing to take to show down?' Cause right now, I don't.
You rarely get the information you think you do.
In this case, whats wrong with showing weakness?
Reread your thinking. You've made an argument for bluffing, but you have a hand thats not a bluff.
Because you're leaving it up to him to make the decision, and this is a pot he could easily steal with nothing but overs. Are you willing to play back at the guy with mid-pair?Quote:
Originally Posted by bjsaust
About the bluff...it's a semi-bluff at best. I'm I willing to put a 1/2 pot bet into play here to see if he plays back? Sure, becuase I'm probably about 50/50 to take it down right now anyway.
FWIW, I was talking to the kb coolman. But, you bet for 3 reasons mainly and very rarely will you ever bet for information (a 4th reason) and that only happens when betting is >EV than playing passively and being lost. Just for now don't bet for information. That shit doesn't make sense but whatever. Anyways, don't just cbet just because we are the aggressor. Know WHY we bet because a cbet is still a bet. And use those 3 reasons, which you should know by now hopefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
Of course I am. Thats what you dont get.
If I show weakness, he bets with a really wide range yes? Of that really wide range, I beat most of it, so calling is nicely +EV.
Unless of course we know opponent rarely bluffs at weakness, in which case checking makes even more sense, since now we know he only bets for value so he has us beat and we found out a lot cheaper than we do by betting.
Bare in mind, I'm not saying betting is better or worse than calling, but betting because you want information is bad.
Also, betting 1/2 pot sucks depending on the stack sizes which were never provided. If I have 50bb I might float this flop and see if you're going to fire again on the turn, depending on any reads I may or may not have. Maybe it's because I mostly play cash, but 1/2 PSB often looks like "I don't really want this pot please kindly go away sir."
I'd bet 1/2 if I bet this flop.
Do you 1/2 PSB this in a cash game?Quote:
Originally Posted by kmind
yeah, I 1/2 pot with my bets on the flop when flop is XYY where X = facecard and YY are rags. It's just so unlikely they hit and if they do call, we can usually double barrel pretty effectively (when bluffing) or playing a more pot controllish way when we have something.
Thanks every one for your input. I think it's time to get out the books again for yet another review.
Betting for information isn't always incorrect, however you have other larger concerns when betting, even when you bet with a marginal hand. The reasons kmind stated that we bet are simply (1) to fold better hands (2) to get worse hands to call (3) "protection" (4) information. Your main concern should be numbers 1 and 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by kb coolman
The thing here is you have internalized the situation well. However, you are making the wrong decision with the information you have concluded. That is you state that if we check, we seem weak, and opponent will bet often to "buy the pot" and we will have to fold. If you think on this you can see how this is flawed logic. If you feel that when you check opponent will bet a wide range of hands here, then you can safely c/c the flop, because you have a fair amount of showdown value. Qx, 2 pair, sets, etc beat you (not looking at the board right now). Sure he will likely be betting all of those hands. However, he will likely be betting a good portion of his hands that missed and have no showdown value.
In this instance, opponent isn't folding any better hands. However, he will likely call with some weaker hands (underpairs, 2nd pair, maybe draws, etc). I think in this spot I'm a little torn between b/fing (because we can't profitably call a raise here generally), or c/cing (because we expect to induce a bluff from him.. That he we expect he will bet with worse).
So I propose now that the "reasons for betting" have been cleared up, we can talk on the merits of b/fing in relation to c/cing, and which is more ideal here, and why.
from now on I'll post 5 word answers and stacks will write it in detail. Thanks stacks :)
What do we know about opponent?
In general this plays a large part in your decision on this board imo. I would rather check/call against an opponent who has a wider bet range here than call range. That is I like a c/c here often against aggressive players. And i like a b/f here against passive players for the exact opposite reason. We know they have a wide calling range (which includes a fair amount of hands we beat), and we know that they are rarely bluffing (so certainly not bluff raising much).Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
However, it's not really the flop that catches me on these type of hands. I'm rather sure against an unknown opponent (and even known opponents), both a b/f and c/c line here is +ev. And it's because of this I think the more important thing to focus on is how this sets up the rest of the hand.
If he's passive I'm almost always b/f, c/f here. But when he is aggressive it becomes a more speculative situation I believe. If you elect to c/c this flop you are likely going to face another bet on the turn/river, and then you have to wonder how likely he is to continue to bet with worse. However, a b/f line on the flop, as already mentioned, loses value from his very wide bluffing range. If we c/c this flop, what is our turn line like? Do you c/f the turn? If so, against an aggressive opponent on a blank turn, do you not feel you are still folding the best hand often? Would you ever c/c, b/f? While yes it makes him play more straightforward, I think it is counterproductive in the fact that he is likely to fold most hands we beat, and only call when we are beat (As I know if he is calling worse underpairs facing that line).
Just trying to get some conversation and thoughts on this type of marginal situation.
what are you saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by swiggidy
I have so much trouble in these spots.Quote:
Originally Posted by XxStacksxX
If you know he's betting a wide range and we check call, a halfway thinking player is gonna double barrel almost every turn since most of our c/c range doesnt have a jack in it, and we have no new information on his range. Knowing a lot of players are going to fire two bullets at us here, it seems like we're calling to fold unimproved turns (*that seems pretty spewy) or check calling to showdown (*seems spewy too)
There's 7.5 BB's in the pot (maybe + is there's antes) and we have a hand that can't stand too much heat, I dont understand how we can give up control of this pot to an aggressive player IP who can exploit our range when we're repping underpairs, unpaired high cards, and weak jacks.
Im just trying to grasp why this isnt a cbet 100% of the time.
That I don't think you can say "bet 1/2 pot" on this flop without any information about stack sizes at least, and preferably information about how the villain plays if it's deep at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by courtiebee
I agree. Actually there's no point in discussing any tournament hand at all without stack sizes, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiggidy
Well u should be confident in your over pair. Betting 2/3 the pot will take this pot down. If u get reraised then fold if they have a jack yr dominated. If they smooth call with no hesitation he probably has a jack. Then he will put u on a overpair. On the turn if u get improovement on yr hand like hit yr set check raise and push.