PokerSoup Forums > Strategy > Small pair on paired board.

Small pair on paired board.

• Page 1 of 2
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Last »

1. • Posted by Krishna 2008-03-31 23:26:02
   • 

   • I was on button and I open limped with
     Only one opponent in BB. No reads. He just sat down.
     He checks.

     Blinds are 1/1/2 and 4 to limp in.
     Flop comes .
     Pot is 9.
     He checks. You bet 10.
     Turn comes a .
     He bets 10.
     What would you do??

2. • Posted by Pokermom 2008-04-01 00:48:11
   • 

   • When he called the $10, I would know I'm behind and I would almost fold before the turn hit the felt. But that's me.

     Anyway... Pot was $9 when you bet $10 and he called. Pot is now $29. Why did he call a pot sized bet? He either has a bigger pair, 2 overcards, flush draw or straight draw, a combination of the above or absolutely nothing and he's setting you up. But he just sat down, you don't know him.

     Flush card comes on turn, he bets $10. You can only go over the top here if you put him on 8s, or worse, trip 9s, and you represent the flush. If he has 8s, he folds. If he has 9s, he probably calls. If he has a flush, you are behind, but you could land a boat.

     If he has crisply delicious, you are dead in the water...

     So, I dunno, $10 bet on a $30 pot screams CALL ME to me.

     So, yeah, fold. Like a baby.

3. • Posted by Jason M 2008-04-01 00:53:52
   • 

   • I would likely fold there also, and not like it very much, but the check-call followed by a small bet makes it seem like he has a good made hand. Maybe he thinks you're stealing and is on a "total bluff" (likely overcards or a draw of some sort), but that seems less likely.

4. • Posted by Pokermom 2008-04-01 01:55:40
   • 

   • But you called and won the pot (just got through your blog). That gave me pause how it went down. I think your opponent could have taken it down by firing one more bullet on the river.

     I still don't understand his $10 bet into a $30 pot. It's a call me bet. He doesn't want you to call. If he wanted to steal, he should have check raised you on the turn. If he checked and you bet again, which you likely would, he raises you and you fold. He would have represented the flush draw and the check raise would solidify that set up. Putting out $10 into that kind of board and that sized pot to steal doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

     But you won $25, I would have lost $14. So far you're $39 ahead of me...

     Good for you.

     -

     p.s. after I wrote this (immediately) I realized that I DO THIS PLAY ALL THE TIME with a draw! Duh! I know I'm not going to get paid when I hit, so I bet the draw hoping to 1) take the pot down now, or 2) get more money in the pot in case I hit. So if he bet his 12-15 outs, he doesn't want to go crazy, he just wants to control the betting action, that's why a call me sized bet. He figures you'll only go over the top with a well made hand, might possibly fold (very possible) and he takes it down right there, or you're building the pot with him towards his superior hand which he hopes hit.

     Totally makes sense now.

5. • Posted by Nick L 2008-04-01 03:26:33
   • 

   • I like betting out small pairs on the flop into a paired board especially against 1 foe. First, you know your ahead at least against 2 random cards. The turn is a little scary that 10 dollar bet you could call. If a high card comes out you can fire and hope he folds his 8. Granted you don't do this often but given the circumstances I don't see why it is a bad move in the long run. I would think this would be better to pull off if you have a bigger stack not in the beginning of your session.

6. • Posted by Krishna 2008-04-01 08:28:12
   • 

   • A "call me bet" can mean blocking bet when some one is drawing. I think he was on a good draw.

     Small bet could mean a monster but in this situation if I were him I would bet a monster at least pot size hoping trip nines or JJ-AA would call.

     Another thing to consider is

     Would you call his river bet?

     OPTION 1: YES
     If you would then you might invest that money in raising and shut down his draws. If he reraises you fold.
     Do you really think you want to shown down even after he reraises.
     If he flat calls your raise he might expect you to bet on river and check in which case we get to show down.
     But if he bets again we fold. We were probably behind anyway.
     Actually it might be cheaper to raise here than to call river bet.

     Pot is 30 he bet 10. Let us say we raise to 2/3 of pot = 28. So our investment is 28.
     If we call his turn bet pot is 50. Now he might bet at least half of pot = 25. So we pay 10+25=35.
     We get to a show down here but we give him a card for cheap.

     OPTION 2: NO.
     I was probably not calling river bet.
     I was lucky he checked.
     He probably was scared that I have a monster and slow playing it.
     I think at the back of my mind I wanted to see what he does on the river because he acts first.
     If I was out of position and checked he would have bet.

7. • Posted by Jason M 2008-04-01 18:48:18
   • 

   • I like the raise on the turn option. I was thinking about it last night and decided that would be a pretty cheap way to figure out if he really had it or if he was just trying to steal. And like you said, Krishna, he may decide to slow-play it and check to you on the river, hoping you'll bet it, in which case you will of course check behind. However, he would probably value bet on the river if you didn't raise. Perhaps even with only a slightly better hand, in which case you'd cost yourself a lot more if you call that, especially if your raise would have induced a fold some of the time. Yet another case where calling is worse than raising... That seems to be the general rule.

8. • Posted by uzjedi 2008-04-01 22:53:06
   • 

   • Raising on the turn might help define the situation, but I don't really like it that much. What that does is turn a hand that has some "showdown value" (that will win sometimes when the river is checked) into a bluff. Sure you might fold out a better hand (not many), maybe push out some of the weaker draws (though the strong draws are likely to stick with you), and you 'll probably get an answer to the question of whether or not his hand is big. But I don't believe that outweighs the benefits of keeping the pot small in this spot with your marginal pair, and winning the pot when the river is checked to you by all the hands you were already beating.

     If you didn't have any showdown value (no pair or even A high) then a raise could be ok. That way you are getting the most from a hand that otherwise has no value. But raising with the sixes sacrifices their showdown value and replaces it with bluff value. Not the worst thing ever, but not the most efficient use of hand value. Make sense?

     And even though a fold on the turn is conservative, I really don't see anything wrong with it considering he is an unknown and the pot is small. The only thing that could make that painful is the small size of his bet. I would probably call the turn, but I like to keep people honest and make thin bets and calls when I can. If you are the type of player who likes to avoid marginal spots then no one will berate you for just pitching the hand.

     However, I would really REALLY like to see a raise preflop. Especially since you opened. Then fire a continuation bet on the flop if you are called. I think that's the most profitable thing to have done in this spot.

9. • Posted by Krishna 2008-04-01 23:10:04
   • 

   • My thinking was like exactly like the above post.
     That is why I called turn and checked it down on the river.
     I am not sure why i did not raise preflop. May be there was a limper or I might have fallen asleep.

     My good friend who is a poker coach and supernova seems to think you need to take charge of the hand.
     He says playing aggressive with marginal hands like this can take you to the next level where players are more aggressive.
     He said I should raise the turn for various reasons.

     1. Value from 33,44.
     2. Fold out made hands like 77,9x.
     3. Charge a single big club and straight draws or even two high cards.
     4. Define his hand on this street

     I argued with him about about turning a decent showdown hand into bluff but he seems to think it is right move.
     I am still learning myself so I would follow up with him on this.

10. • Posted by Krishna 2008-04-01 23:17:15
    • 

    • Jason,
      I am glad you are thinking correctly.
      On the contrary, in spite of all the reasons for raising I cannot convince myself to do that.
      Probably because all beginners like us do not want the bigger "risk" that comes with building the pot.
      I think that is where a big bankroll helps.

      This might be a good problem to do some EV calculations.
      I will refer my Harrington book on turn play and see if I can apply some of the concepts to this situation.

      PS:
      Having position helps a lot in this situation.

11. • Posted by uzjedi 2008-04-02 00:14:55
    • 

    • An unknown at these lower stakes is likely to be a fairly weak player (weak is a relative term of course). The plays I discussed were assuming this factor. Against a tougher opponent, it COULD be better to raise or fold. The reason being is they are much more likely to follow up with a river bet since us just calling their small turn bet shows weakness. Some players will make this small bet just to see if you only call them. Then they will bet pot on almost any river since they know you aren't likely strong enough to call. But even with our knowledge of this it's still pretty thin to call the river bet also, unless they are some kind of aggro wacko. But, regardless of how tough the opponents in the blinds are, I still raise it preflop every time.

      I don't quite agree with the advice your friend gave you regarding the reasons to raise. You mention getting value from worse hands AND folding out better hands as two different reasons for the same raise. This is a sort of controversial topic in current poker theory. It's called a "value-bluff." And the idea is just what you said. You might get a better hand to fold, or you might get value from a worse hand. But I find that nearly EVERY top high stakes NL cash player (I read blogs and watch videos of their play online) does NOT like the idea of a value-bluff. They almost never describe the reasons for a bet or raise as being so ambiguous. It's the sort of thing people do when they are at a loss for what the best decision is. But I honestly think the only hands that call you either have you beat, or have decent equity in the pot with a big draw. A worse hand (other than a draw) pretty much never calls.

      It's true that smart aggression in thin (marginal) situations is key to beating higher stakes and tougher opponents. Sometimes I can look like a maniac when playing my best against a regular at 2/4-5/10 NL. But most of those plays are player dependent moves. They require some read of the type of player your opponent is. Against an unknown at the stakes you mentioned I think your post flop play was best for the reasons I mentioned.

      P.S. I like the Harrington books, and some of the concepts certainly apply to cash games. But remember that they are specifically tournament books, so their advice on turn play may not be the best. I recommend "No Limit Hold 'Em: Theory and Practice" by David Sklansky and Ed Miller. There's also a book out called "Professional No Limit Hold 'Em" that I haven't read much of but hear good things about.

12. • Posted by Krishna 2008-04-02 01:02:05
    • 

    • Nice points.
      I guess it all depends the style.
      Harrington has cash books now. :-)
      Already read both NLTAp and PNL.
      Both do not say much about turn play.

13. • Posted by Krishna 2008-04-02 01:16:38
    • 

    • I guess value is very low here. if we had TT, JJ we would get more value since we can beat the 9.
      The raise has more bluff here than value.

14. • Posted by Jason M 2008-04-02 02:15:06
    • 

    • Wow, I step away from the computer for a moment and look what I miss! :p

      Great discussion, guys. I wish I had something more to offer at this point, but I'm supposed to be taking a break from the computer tonight so I should get outta here.

      Check this out, Krishna: Amazon sent me Harrington's first cash book (got it today), but hasn't shipped the second yet. I went to Borders today with my 40% off coupon and both were there. Aargh! Not only was I overcharged, but I don't even have both yet. What a rip... I too have read the above-mentioned books, and agree. I especially liked Professional No-Limit Hold'em and can't wait for volume 2 to come out.

15. • Posted by Pokermom 2008-04-02 15:40:07
    • 

    • Consider the player. Consider the bet.

      I have to say that I have been experimenting with taking my game to another level, being more aggressive and taking control of betting is on my list. However, it's been tough and finally paid off in a $30 online SNG last night.

      The main difference I noticed in this game was that there was virtually no limped pots. By the time we were down to 4 players, a min raise was usually enough to get everyone to fold. Either they folded or re-raised. There was no passive play. None. Several times there was a raise followed by a re-reaise and folds. Hardly saw a flop. And, when we did, we rarely saw a turn. Practically only saw showdowns with the all-ins.

      I folded many a pair before the flop in this room, the highest pair was 10s which I gladly folded to a raise and re-raise after me (we got to see this - they had QQ AA, was glad to be out of that one).

      I got lucky on a couple of hands and was 2nd in chips with five players left so I also called 2 separate all ins when it didn't cost me my tournament life (1/2 and 1/3 of my stack, respectively). Both times they had a big pair, which is exactly what I put them on and why I called (since it didn't cost me my tournament life). Both times I had high suited connectors with live cards. Both times I hit - once a flush, the other a higher pair. That built my monster stack and I rode it to a first place win for $135, but even with my monster stack and down to 3 players, it still took 40 minutes to finish the game.

      But as Krishna notes above, it really depends on your opponent. I think I was lucky to be in a room with fairly good players. If they were making a play, they made it well and I didn't get further invested and their aggression paid off. And when I made a play, I was paid off as well. Controlling the betting was everything in this room. You didn't get to see a flop cheap, position was played expertly by my opponents, and once the flop hit, you never called with anything less than top pair, good kicker, and you typically raised.

      It was kinda fun. I liked it a lot. I was getting frustrated in the $10/20 SNGs, win some, lose some, barely above break-even with a lot of weird play. I've played the $100 rooms too but, ironically, the play seems weird there too - I like this $30 level. It's new to me. I've played about dozen of them now and have a much better ROI on them than any other level.

      But, in a cash game, I'm still a fish. I wouldn't have called your opponent, I might have considered, briefly, raising him, but I'm pretty sure I would have chickened out and folded. Not there yet. Have had my ass handed to me too much recently at the cash games.

      Sigh.

      -

• Page 1 of 2
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Last »