Free cards seem harder to come by these days. |
|
Posted Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:09 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
Something I noticed on Party the last few days: raising on the flop in LP with a draw isn't nearly as successful as it used to be. I can count at least a half dozen times where I raised a flop bet with a flush draw only to have it 3-bet back to me, or flat-called with a turn lead when the turn card bricked. It's been much more frequent with flush draws than straight draws, but that's to be expected since the flush draw is more readily identified.
Anyone else seeing this same thing? It's not a completely useless tactic for sure, but its effectiveness has been significantly reduced lately.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:23 am GMT by suitedaces84
Yes, the standards for 3-betting the flop have gone down signifcantly. Back in the day a raise defuse most bettors. All in all the play is better and more aggressive, IMO.
Posted Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:24 pm GMT by krakajak
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Yes, the standards for 3-betting the flop have gone down signifcantly. Back in the day a raise defuse most bettors. All in all the play is better and more aggressive, IMO. |
I know it has gotten more aggressive, but I don't know about better. I can't count the number of times when I've just sat down at a table, flopped top pair, and two opponents started a raising war. I tell myself there's no way in hell my hand can be good, and that I should muck. But then I tell myself "maybe they're just LAGs," so I call down, only to find one guy had a middle pocket pair, and the other guy had second pair or TPWK. Seems to happen 2-3 times a week.
The problem is that now I never know when to give my opponents any credit, so I end up paying off a real hands more often as well.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:07 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I don't know why everyone likes Party so much. In my experience, the level of play there is much better on average than other sites I've frequented. Although Party has the most tables, they have the highest tournament rake and highest minimum rake of the online sites. If Party is fished out for the moment, you might try PokerStars or Royal Vegas.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:35 am GMT by Muck
| krakajak wrote: | | The problem is that now I never know when to give my opponents any credit, so I end up paying off a real hands more often as well. |
I had this problem a lot, my strategy now is to start off respecting everyone while I build notes on their plays.
Although it’s annoying when you spot a fish who’s making a continual mistake and someone busts him before you have a chance to exploit it 
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:27 am GMT by Loonbat
Damn it - that Lee Jones book has become popular ...
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:38 am GMT by Dave B
I hope that this isnt a complaint post. All you need to do is pick your spot and clean up.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:42 am GMT by Soup_dog
| Muck wrote: | | krakajak wrote: | | The problem is that now I never know when to give my opponents any credit, so I end up paying off a real hands more often as well. |
I had this problem a lot, my strategy now is to start off respecting everyone while I build notes on their plays.
Although it’s annoying when you spot a fish who’s making a continual mistake and someone busts him before you have a chance to exploit it |
This has just started to happen to me in the last couple of weeks. I have ramped up my aggressive factor quite a bit and am winning more pots without a showdown, but I am indeed getting caught by the "big" ones more often. Thankfully I usually make enough from other hands to make up for it.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:28 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Dave B wrote: | | I hope that this isnt a complaint post. All you need to do is pick your spot and clean up. |
No, of course not. I just thought it was something interesting I had noticed.
I've found the adjustment people are making to be especially profitable when I have everything BUT a flush draw. I can raise with my set or top two in last position with a flush draw on board, for example, and then have it 3-bet back to me by lesser hands. Then I can raise the turn when it bricks and the aggressor leads again. If I have no part of a draw, I can still play it that way and bet it hard when the 3rd suited falls. When they always assume you're on a flush draw, it's just as good when they never think you are.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:44 am GMT by Dave B
I might point one thing out-this has made it MUCH more difficult to play multiple limit tables. You just cant pick up on who the is willing to raise with very little as well as when you are just playing one table.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:37 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Sidenote: if you're on a flush draw you don't stand to lose much by raising and having it three bet back at you. If there is one caller between you and the 3-bettor, it will be a break even street for you. If there is more than one caller and the 3-bet will actually be benefitial to you. Also, cap it if there is at least one caller between you and the 3-bettor.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:10 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Sidenote: if you're on a flush draw you don't stand to lose much by raising and having it three bet back at you. If there is one caller between you and the 3-bettor, it will be a break even street for you. If there is more than one caller and the 3-bet will actually be benefitial to you. Also, cap it if there is at least one caller between you and the 3-bettor. |
I still don't understand how this math makes sense. You don't have 2:1 odds on the turn; they're still 4:1 for the single card. Yes, yes, I know you're going to see the river if you miss the turn, but you'll likely face bets on 4th that you haven't factored in here. Maybe I'm missing something important, but I don't like capping unless it's 4-handed, or I have other draws (gutshot or 2 overs, etc). I can't see your implied odds being good enough in a 3-handed limit pot to warrant it, especially if your opponent has already put you on that hand.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:24 pm GMT by krakajak
| Dave B wrote: | | I might point one thing out-this has made it MUCH more difficult to play multiple limit tables. You just cant pick up on who the is willing to raise with very little as well as when you are just playing one table. |
That is true. I uisualy play 3-4 at a time, (on a laptop too, so I constantly have to toggle back and forth between screens). It makes notetaking impossible.
I guess I need to shell out the $500 and buy a monitor that will let me view all the tables at once.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:29 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | suitedaces84 wrote: | | Sidenote: if you're on a flush draw you don't stand to lose much by raising and having it three bet back at you. If there is one caller between you and the 3-bettor, it will be a break even street for you. If there is more than one caller and the 3-bet will actually be benefitial to you. Also, cap it if there is at least one caller between you and the 3-bettor. |
I still don't understand how this math makes sense. You don't have 2:1 odds on the turn; they're still 4:1 for the single card. Yes, yes, I know you're going to see the river if you miss the turn, but you'll likely face bets on 4th that you haven't factored in here. Maybe I'm missing something important, but I don't like capping unless it's 4-handed, or I have other draws (gutshot or 2 overs, etc). I can't see your implied odds being good enough in a 3-handed limit pot to warrant it, especially if your opponent has already put you on that hand. |
Think of it this way: you've got more pot equity than your average caller, don't you think it would be in your best interest to get money into the pot now?
Implied odds have nothing to do with this concept, although betting draws will only improve your implied odds.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:41 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Think of it this way: you've got more pot equity than your average caller, don't you think it would be in your best interest to get money into the pot now? |
Sure, if you have enough average callers to do it. One guy in the middle isn't going to cut it, especially if he has to call 2 more bets to stay in the hand. If you get an early lead bet, one call, you raise and then a 3-bet, the person in the middle is going to have to have a pretty strong hand to stay. If he does, then you may be capping without as much equity as you think. If he folds, then you're capping heads up against someone that you are likely behind, and who will make you pay again on the turn.
Posted Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:02 pm GMT by suitedaces84
If he's called three you know he'll call a forth. And I see what you're about your equity not being as high as you may think (your flush could easily be beat by a boat if he's got a set). You also have to factor in the caller's cards. If he's got something he's going to hang around with, the guy with a set is less likely to fill up. There also is a lot of decption in capping with a draw. Then there's the free card factor, that's worth a little something. You're also making it harder for players to fold, even when they're confident they're beat. Combine these three factors with the fact that you're losing little (if any) EV,and I think it's the right move.
Edit: also even if the caller in the middle folds you won't be losing that much EV (.34/1).
|
|
