Floping the wheel in a limped pot |
|
Posted Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:24 am GMT by Jauron
Leaving the stakes out of this as I think it may take away from the question, but it was NL Live game online full 10 person table.
Table overall loved to limp, and then loved to call raises if they limped (at least a few did) I find myself in the BB with A4os
EP limps, as does cutoff, SB follows and I decide to see a flop.
2,3,5 (with 2 spades)
SB bets min, I want to make it expensive for the flush, so I slightly overbet the pot, EP folds, CO smooth calls, SB reraises the new pot size and it's on me.
Here is my problem, I firmly believe in two nearly hard fast rules:
1) Do not go broke in an unraised pot unless you hold the nuts
2) Do not go broke with the sucker end of the straight.
Assume no strong reads on either player overall, except you are positive the SB has something and is not drawing at the flush and you are certain that unless a spade drops on the turn the SB will be moving in.
CO has about 50% of my stack, SB has about 80%.
So do you go broke in this case? Do you even consider laying this down? If you do think you are ahead is the smooth call the best option?
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 Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:41 am GMT by JohnnyCache
With no read on the players, I'd get in a raising war. You think he had 4-6? 5-6? 7-8?
Or, I guess you could call and fold to a spade. Did you have a spade?
Posted Sat Sep 17, 2005 3:44 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Personally, I go broke here if he has 64. That is the one hand he would need to have the best of it against me here, unless he also had A4 with the flush draw. And if he is holding 64, more power to him for playing with a crap hand--I'll take my money back from that sucker later.
Laying it down is out of the question. Calling is highly inappropriate with redraws against you here in my opinion. So I think all-in is your only move. It's a +EV move, and your wheel will be good in almost every situation. Yes, you have the sucker end of the straight, but I'm not sure that applies in the case of a wheel, because holding 64 is a very rare occurence. If you had A2 and the flop were 345, it would be different, but in this case I go all-in and hope for the best--at least 4 times out of 5, you will probably have the best hand.
Posted Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:58 am GMT by Jauron
| JohnnyCache wrote: |
Or, I guess you could call and fold to a spade. Did you have a spade? |
I hold the 4 of spades.
Posted Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:37 am GMT by TheSalche
push ... what cutter said
if he's got 46 you're either broke now or broke later
i wouldnt call this the sucker end of the straight really ... it is, but it isnt
if you dont play 2nd nuts what are you hoping for?
Posted Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:33 am GMT by UrAteUp
I agree with The Salche and Cutter. You have to play this. The best way is with an All-In bet. That makes it very expensive for someone to try to draw to the flush. As for a higher straight. Not likely anyone would have played those cards pre-flop. You have a hand now push it and then step up and claim your prize.
Posted Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:50 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| UrAteUp wrote: | | Not likely anyone would have played those cards pre-flop. |
Not out of the question that the SB completes with 64s getting 7:1.
| Jauron wrote: | | So do you go broke in this case? |
Yes.
| Jauron wrote: | | Do you even consider laying this down? |
No.
| Jauron wrote: | | If you do think you are ahead is the smooth call the best option? |
No. Push.
Posted Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:02 pm GMT by Dave B
Remember, not that it changes anything, but your 4 of spades leaves only 8 outs for flush draws. If 2 people are on flush draws, that leaves only 6 outs for flushes.
I know dollars dont matter, but do you have more cash, or are you going home if you lose the amount on the table?
Posted Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:11 pm GMT by 1988 TR
| Jauron wrote: |
Here is my problem, I firmly believe in two nearly hard fast rules:
1) Do not go broke in an unraised pot unless you hold the nuts
|
In my opinion, that is silly.
If I think I have the hand won, I could care less if the pot was raised or not. All I care about is the money that is currently being put in the pot & my odds. To fold the second nuts because the pot was not raised, is just nonsense.
Posted Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:25 am GMT by Jauron
After spending the 10 or so seconds I had to ponder all of these things I decided I would go broke with it.
I don't agree with pushing though, if the CO has the flush draw I want him drawing at it for this price, for one card. If a spade comes on the turn, I let it go, if it doesn't he has to push his remaining chips into the pot to catch it. I'm basically giving him one card for a steep price. (At this point it costs him about 40-50% of his stack to call, he might move in on me and I don't mind that either) I smooth called, CO dropped.
Turn was a blank, 9 of hearts, SB did move in and I called. He had pocket Kings and was drawing dead.
Posted Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:29 am GMT by Jauron
| 1988 TR wrote: | | Jauron wrote: |
Here is my problem, I firmly believe in two nearly hard fast rules:
1) Do not go broke in an unraised pot unless you hold the nuts
|
In my opinion, that is silly.
If I think I have the hand won, I could care less if the pot was raised or not. All I care about is the money that is currently being put in the pot & my odds. To fold the second nuts because the pot was not raised, is just nonsense. |
What makes it silly? Take away the fact I had the second best hand...what hand would you need to feel comfortable going broke?
I've watched too many people go broke with big hands in a limped pot refusing to believe that some silly hand would have called despite the agressive nature of their betting post flop.
I think it's a solid rule, it has it's exceptions like any other rule but tell the guy who went broke with pocket's Kings that the rule is silly.
Posted Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:00 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Jauron wrote: | | I don't agree with pushing though, if the CO has the flush draw I want him drawing at it for this price, for one card. |
In retrospect, we can't judge that anyway. You gave us stack sizes relative to each other, but not relative to the pot. We have no idea how much you had left behind.
Posted Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:05 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Unless it's super deep stacked, I'd go broke/take someone's stack here.
Posted Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:10 pm GMT by Jauron
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | Jauron wrote: | | I don't agree with pushing though, if the CO has the flush draw I want him drawing at it for this price, for one card. |
In retrospect, we can't judge that anyway. You gave us stack sizes relative to each other, but not relative to the pot. We have no idea how much you had left behind. |
True but I did state I had a strong feeling the SB would be pushing on the turn unless a spade hit, I felt this was important to my decision. No sense pushing a player out of the hand for one card IMHO.
At anyrate I wanted to get a feel for how others viewed a limped pot that suddenly got agressive after the flop. There is no right or wrong answer here 100% of the time unless you play ONLY with the math involved, but that is poker after all.
Posted Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:35 pm GMT by Fat Tony
| Jauron wrote: | | So do you go broke in this case? |
yes.
| Jauron wrote: | | Do you even consider laying this down? |
not on your life.
| Jauron wrote: | | If you do think you are ahead is the smooth call the best option? |
absolutely not, i push like there's no tomorrow.
Posted Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:31 pm GMT by 1988 TR
| Jauron wrote: | | 1988 TR wrote: | | Jauron wrote: |
Here is my problem, I firmly believe in two nearly hard fast rules:
1) Do not go broke in an unraised pot unless you hold the nuts
|
In my opinion, that is silly.
If I think I have the hand won, I could care less if the pot was raised or not. All I care about is the money that is currently being put in the pot & my odds. To fold the second nuts because the pot was not raised, is just nonsense. |
What makes it silly? Take away the fact I had the second best hand...what hand would you need to feel comfortable going broke?
I've watched too many people go broke with big hands in a limped pot refusing to believe that some silly hand would have called despite the agressive nature of their betting post flop.
I think it's a solid rule, it has it's exceptions like any other rule but tell the guy who went broke with pocket's Kings that the rule is silly. |
What makes it silly is the same reason you called anyway.
I understand anyone can have anything on an unraised pot. But deciding to go broke or not go broke just because a pot was unraised doesn't make sense to me.
You still use the same logic. What are my odds, what do I think he has, etc.
If I think I have the best hand, I am willing to go broke - It doesn't matter if the pot was raised or unraised. If the pot was unraised, I have to expand the range of hands my opponent might have.
Posted Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:17 pm GMT by ScanX
| Jauron wrote: |
What makes it silly? Take away the fact I had the second best hand...what hand would you need to feel comfortable going broke?
|
in your hand, if I had a set of 5's I dont go necessarily broke but I might get very stubborn.
the "dont go broke in an unraised pot" rule sounds like somethin u have read in SuperSystem and I never really agreed with it. (and he was only talkin about sets in that case if I remember correctly).
I might go broke anyday with 2nd or even 3rd set in an unraised pot...so 2nd nuts with your straight is a no brainer.
Posted Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:58 pm GMT by Jauron
.
.
.
Posted Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:05 pm GMT by Jauron
| ScanX wrote: | | Jauron wrote: |
What makes it silly? Take away the fact I had the second best hand...what hand would you need to feel comfortable going broke?
|
in your hand, if I had a set of 5's I dont go necessarily broke but I might get very stubborn.
the "dont go broke in an unraised pot" rule sounds like somethin u have read in SuperSystem and I never really agreed with it. (and he was only talkin about sets in that case if I remember correctly).
I might go broke anyday with 2nd or even 3rd set in an unraised pot...so 2nd nuts with your straight is a no brainer. |
I might have gotten it from Super System, can't remember, but I do remember Doyle playing in a WPT event where he said the same thing, he had top pair good kicker and the betting started getting a little nuts on the river, he chucked his cards and said something to the effect of "I'd hate to go broke in this unraised pot".
The point wasnt' that I can't or won't allow myself to go broke in an unraised pot, but that because it was and the SB was the aggresive player I have to consider he might have a hand like 4,6. Not to assume it, but to consider it.
If it was a raised pot, and I had Q,9 and the flop came 10,J,K there should be some thought put into what having the crap end of the straight is worth, the reverse is true in an unraised pot where the SB gets to see the flop for half price.
Of course I'm more likely to get stubborn with A,4 in this case than I am with Q,9.
My initial read was the SB had a real hand, the CO did not. Putting the SB on a hand is much harder due to the limped pot.
Posted Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:52 am GMT by ScanX
| Jauron wrote: |
I might have gotten it from Super System, can't remember, but I do remember Doyle playing in a WPT event where he said the same thing, he had top pair good kicker and the betting started getting a little nuts on the river, he chucked his cards and said something to the effect of "I'd hate to go broke in this unraised pot".
|
ye but there's a world of difference between going broke in a tournament (moreover WPT) than in ring game :)
Posted Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:39 am GMT by 1988 TR
I just don't like the quote for what it means in the literal sense.
The phrase basically means expand the range of hands your opponnent might have if the pot was unraised.
If you take it literally and fold your hand just because the pot was unraised.... To me, that is silly.
Posted Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:53 am GMT by Dave B
So: 7 limpers preflop, you hold 55 and call on the button.
Flop K 9 5 rainbow, one bets, another raises pot, another calls, do you fold 3rd nuts?
Posted Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:10 am GMT by Jauron
| ScanX wrote: | | Jauron wrote: |
I might have gotten it from Super System, can't remember, but I do remember Doyle playing in a WPT event where he said the same thing, he had top pair good kicker and the betting started getting a little nuts on the river, he chucked his cards and said something to the effect of "I'd hate to go broke in this unraised pot".
|
ye but there's a world of difference between going broke in a tournament (moreover WPT) than in ring game  |
Of course there is, but live games don't get shown on T.V. either. 
Posted Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:22 am GMT by Jauron
| Dave B wrote: | So: 7 limpers preflop, you hold 55 and call on the button.
Flop K 9 5 rainbow, one bets, another raises pot, another calls, do you fold 3rd nuts? |
That is tough, but then I've never been anygood at folding sets when holding a pocket pair, so I'm probably the last person to ask on this one. Pocket 9's are the real scare here, pocket Kings aren't as likely unless it was the first guy limping hoping to get a raise.
I'd probably reraise and go from there.
Posted Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:25 am GMT by Jauron
| 1988 TR wrote: | I just don't like the quote for what it means in the literal sense.
The phrase basically means expand the range of hands your opponnent might have if the pot was unraised.
If you take it literally and fold your hand just because the pot was unraised.... To me, that is silly. |
This is the advanced section of the forums, I guess I expected you to understand why the rule is there and what it means. If you'd like we can nitpick about the sucker end of a straight too, I mean it's not always a fold either. 
If this is all you have to add, consider it added to the thread and move on please.
Posted Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:42 pm GMT by 1988 TR
| Jauron wrote: | | 1988 TR wrote: | I just don't like the quote for what it means in the literal sense.
The phrase basically means expand the range of hands your opponnent might have if the pot was unraised.
If you take it literally and fold your hand just because the pot was unraised.... To me, that is silly. |
This is the advanced section of the forums, I guess I expected you to understand why the rule is there and what it means. If you'd like we can nitpick about the sucker end of a straight too, I mean it's not always a fold either.
If this is all you have to add, consider it added to the thread and move on please. |
I gave you the best advice there is. You are acting like you are taking that phrase literally, and I am letting you know not to. Step back and understand that the phrase really means expand your opponents hand ranges, not "Automatic fold".
I try to help you & you want to go with the above post?
Posted Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:40 pm GMT by Jauron
Go read my posts again, if you can't understand I was expanding the ranges of the hands that might be raising me then I cant help it. I damn near came out and said it in one post.
OR
Just keep saying this same thing, assumming to know what I mean and think. I kept my first post as simple as possible so as not to sway anyone. At one point I did include the SB might have the hand needed to beat me, but it wasn't very likely, but I decided to delete that portion and let people come up with their own thoughts.
I'm putting you in a situation that I was in, with very limited information, just like I had. My rule is a guidline that basically states in a limped pot the Button,SB,BB can have just about anything, because of that you have to be very careful. You can think it means whatever the hell you want, I know what it means to me.
Your "advise" isn't blowing my mind like you I suppose you hoped it would because I already understand the concept, it's really not my fault you have trouble accepting that.
Posted Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:06 pm GMT by 1988 TR
OK
Here is the events :
You post :
"Here is my problem, I firmly believe in two nearly hard fast rules:
1) Do not go broke in an unraised pot unless you hold the nuts
2) Do not go broke with the sucker end of the straight. "
I say # 1 is silly.
You say why?.
I say why I think that.
You tell me to get lost.
Thanks
|
|
